Money-laundering is a continuing, standalone offence where prima facie proceeds of crime and statutory presumption can sustain proceedings.

Money-laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is treated as a distinct, continuing offence, and proceedings may survive even if cognizance in one predicate matter is quashed, so long as other scheduled offence material still shows a prima facie nexus. Proceeds of crime remain the jurisdictional foundation, but they may be traced from the FIR, ECIR and surrounding material without an immediate cash trail. Section 24 creates a rebuttable presumption that operates once such linkage is shown, leaving rebuttal to trial rather than discharge. Property transfers without cash consideration may still constitute proceeds of crime if linked to criminal activity, and supplementary complaints may reinforce cognizance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a standalone and continuing offence, and whether proceedings can survive despite quashing of cognizance in one predicate case where other scheduled offence proceedings remain; (ii) Whether the existence of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) is a condition precedent for invoking the Act and how such proceeds are to be identified through the FIR and ECIR process; (iii) Whether Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shifts the burden of proof on the accused at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iv) Whether absence of a monetary component in the scheduled offence defeats proceedings under the Act and whether a property transfer without cash consideration can still amount to proceeds of crime; (v) Whether the supplementary complaint strengthened the basis for cognizance and continuation of proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a standalone and continuing offence, and whether proceedings can survive despite quashing of cognizance in one predicate case where other scheduled offence proceedings remain.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats money laundering as distinct from the predicate offence. The offence under Section 3 covers concealment, possession, acquisition, use, and projection or claiming of proceeds of crime as untainted property, and the activity is continuing so long as the proceeds remain under illicit enjoyment. The existence of a scheduled offence is a jurisdictional foundation, but the fate of one predicate case does not automatically extinguish proceedings where other FIRs or transactions still disclose a prima facie nexus with proceeds of crime. The independence of PMLA proceedings is reinforced by the special statutory scheme and the separate character of the laundering process.

Conclusion: The offence under the Act is standalone and continuing, and the proceedings were not rendered unsustainable merely because cognizance in one predicate matter had been quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) is a condition precedent for invoking the Act and how such proceeds are to be identified through the FIR and ECIR process.

Analysis: Proceeds of crime are the foundation of the Act. The expression is wide and includes property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, as well as its equivalent value. The FIR may provide the criminal foundation and the ECIR may be recorded on that basis, but the ECIR thereafter operates independently for money-laundering investigation. The existence and identification of proceeds of crime are matters of prima facie material and investigation, and the absence of an immediate cash trail does not by itself negate the jurisdiction if the surrounding material indicates illicit derivation.

Conclusion: The existence of proceeds of crime is a jurisdictional prerequisite, but the materials disclosed a prima facie basis for tracing such proceeds and continuing the proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 shifts the burden of proof on the accused at the stage of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 24 creates a rebuttable statutory presumption once material indicates linkage between the property and the scheduled offence. The burden then shifts to the accused to show lawful acquisition and to rebut the presumption. At the discharge stage, the Court is not required to decide rebuttal conclusively, but only to see whether there is sufficient material to proceed. If a prima facie nexus exists, the presumption operates and the matter must ordinarily go to trial.

Conclusion: The statutory burden under Section 24 operates against the accused at the threshold stage, and the petitioners did not establish a ground for discharge.

Issue (iv): Whether absence of a monetary component in the scheduled offence defeats proceedings under the Act and whether a property transfer without cash consideration can still amount to proceeds of crime.

Analysis: Proceeds of crime are not confined to cash. The definition extends to property obtained from criminal activity in any form. A transfer of immovable property, or unlawful gain arising from execution of documents or wrongful title creation, may still constitute proceeds of crime if there is a prima facie nexus with the predicate criminal activity. The absence of direct monetary exchange is therefore not decisive; what matters is whether the property reflects an illicit benefit flowing from the scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The absence of a monetary component did not vitiate the proceedings, and property transactions without cash consideration could still fall within the Act if linked to criminal activity.

Issue (v): Whether the supplementary complaint strengthened the basis for cognizance and continuation of proceedings.

Analysis: A supplementary complaint is a recognised continuation of the investigative process and may place additional material before the Special Court. It does not vitiate the original complaint; rather, it enlarges the material available for assessing a prima facie case. Where such complaint adds further transactions or links to proceeds of crime, it supports continuation of proceedings.

Conclusion: The supplementary complaint reinforced, rather than weakened, the basis for cognizance and continuation of the case.

Final Conclusion: The materials disclosed a prima facie case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the revisional challenge to the refusal of discharge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Money-laundering proceedings are sustainable where there is a prima facie nexus between the property and a subsisting scheduled offence, because the offence under Section 3 is a continuing and independent offence and the accused must rebut the statutory presumption under Section 24 at trial rather than at the discharge stage.

---