Money laundering confirmed as an independent continuing offence; prima facie nexus and rebuttable presumption sustain PMLA proceedings.

Money laundering is affirmed as an independent, continuing offence that may proceed once a scheduled offence furnishes the jurisdictional trigger; quashing cognizance in one predicate case does not automatically defeat PMLA proceedings where other FIRs or investigative materials remain as independent foundations. Existence of proceeds of crime is a foundational requirement and may include non-monetary assets; tracing may begin from FIRs but an ECIR, once registered, functions as the independent investigative basis. The statutory rebuttable presumption shifts evidentiary burden if prosecution materials show a prima facie nexus, and supplementary investigative material may strengthen the foundation for cognizance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the offence of money laundering is a standalone and continuing offence independent of the pendency or outcome of the scheduled offence and whether quashing of cognizance in one predicate case vitiates PMLA proceedings when other FIRs remain; (ii) Whether existence of proceeds of crime is a condition precedent for invoking PMLA and how such proceeds are traced through FIR/ECIR; (iii) The scope and operation of the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA at the stage of consideration under Section 227 Cr.P.C.; (iv) Whether absence of a monetary component in the scheduled offence defeats invocation of PMLA and whether property transfers without monetary exchange can constitute proceeds of crime; (v) Whether a supplementary complaint under Section 45 PMLA strengthens the foundation for cognizance.

Issue (i): Whether the offence of money laundering is standalone and continuing and whether quashing of cognizance in one predicate case defeats PMLA proceedings where other FIRs survive.

Analysis: The statutory text and precedents treat laundering as criminalising the chain of processes involving proceeds of crime, which can continue after the predicate offence. Section 44 and the scheme of the Act permit PMLA prosecution to proceed independently once a scheduled offence furnishes jurisdictional trigger. Where multiple FIRs exist, each may provide an independent factual foundation; quashing of cognizance in one predicate case does not automatically extinguish PMLA jurisdiction if other FIRs remain with prima facie nexus to the alleged illicit property.

Conclusion: Money laundering is a standalone, continuing offence; quashing of cognizance in one predicate case does not automatically vitiate PMLA proceedings if other FIRs capable of generating proceeds of crime subsist.

Issue (ii): Whether existence of proceeds of crime is condition precedent for invoking PMLA and how proceeds are traced through FIR and ECIR.

Analysis: The definition of proceeds of crime is broad and may include non monetary assets and their value. A scheduled offence is the jurisdictional trigger; the ED may trace proceeds via police reports, charge sheets, or FIRs and register an ECIR. Once registered, ECIR functions as the investigative record for PMLA proceedings and stands independent of the FIR for investigative purposes.

Conclusion: Existence of proceeds of crime is a foundational requirement to invoke the PMLA; tracing may originate from FIRs but the ECIR, once recorded, constitutes the independent investigatory basis for PMLA proceedings.

Issue (iii): Scope of the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA at the stage of consideration under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

Analysis: Section 24 imposes a rebuttable presumption once prosecution material links property to a scheduled offence, shifting evidentiary burden to the accused. At the discharge stage the court must form a presumptive opinion from materials on record; it need not conclusively test rebuttal but must be satisfied that a prima facie nexus exists. The presumption operates to sustain continuation to trial unless the accused shows absence of nexus or manifest insufficiency in prosecution material.

Conclusion: The statutory presumption under Section 24 operates at the pre charge stage in a limited manner; if a prima facie link is shown by prosecution material the presumption sustains continuation unless rebutted by cogent explanation.

Issue (iv): Whether absence of monetary component in the scheduled offence vitiates PMLA and whether property transfers without monetary exchange can be proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The statutory definition of proceeds of crime is not limited to cash; property obtained or advantaged through wrongful acts, including transfers without monetary exchange, can be proceeds of crime if a prima facie nexus to the scheduled offence is shown. Mere civil irregularity is insufficient; factual nexus and prima facie evidence of illicit origin are required.

Conclusion: Absence of a monetary transaction does not automatically vitiate PMLA proceedings; property transfers without monetary exchange can constitute proceeds of crime if prima facie nexus to criminal activity is established.

Issue (v): Whether a supplementary complaint under Section 45 PMLA strengthens the foundational requirements for cognizance.

Analysis: A supplementary complaint brings additional investigative material to the court and may enlarge the evidentiary base; where it connects further transactions or fresh instances of handling proceeds, it reinforces the prima facie case for cognizance and continuation.

Conclusion: A supplementary complaint, if supported by additional material connected to proceeds of crime, strengthens the jurisdictional foundation for cognizance under the PMLA.

Final Conclusion: On the facts and materials placed before the Court, the petitioners have not shown any legal infirmity in the Special Court's order declining discharge; the matters disclose prima facie material warranting trial under the PMLA and the revisional petition is therefore dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where at least one scheduled offence and prima facie material linking property to that offence exist, PMLA proceedings may be continued as money laundering is an independent and continuing offence; the statutory presumption shifts the evidentiary burden to the accused at the pre charge stage but does not eliminate the requirement of a prima facie nexus between the property and the scheduled offence.

---