Money-laundering liability can attach to later dealings with proceeds of crime even if assets were acquired before a Schedule amendment.

Liability for money laundering under the PMLA depends on a person's later involvement with proceeds of crime, including possession, acquisition, concealment or projection as untainted, and is not defeated merely because the underlying assets were acquired before the 2009 amendment adding the predicate offence to the Schedule. In a disproportionate assets matter, the tribunal noted that the FIR, ECIR and charge-sheet post-dated the amendment and that the alleged disproportionate assets exceeded the value of the attached properties. On that basis, prior acquisition of the property did not bar its treatment as proceeds of crime, and the provisional attachment was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether properties allegedly acquired before the 2009 amendment bringing the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 within the schedule to the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could still be treated as proceeds of crime and form the basis of attachment under the Act of 2002.

Analysis: The appeal concerned confirmation of provisional attachment in a case arising from allegations of disproportionate assets against a public servant. The relevant FIR was registered in 2013, the ECIR followed in 2014, and the charge-sheet was later filed for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The challenge was founded on the premise that properties acquired prior to the 2009 amendment could not be treated as proceeds of crime because the predicate offence had not then been a scheduled offence. The Court applied the principle that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is independent and is not tied to the date on which the scheduled offence was committed. What matters is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, including possession, acquisition, concealment, or projecting property as untainted. The Court also noted that the alleged disproportionate assets exceeded the value of the attached properties.

Conclusion: The prior acquisition of the property did not prevent it from being treated as proceeds of crime, and the attachment was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the confirmation of attachment remained undisturbed because the money-laundering enquiry was not barred by the fact that some assets were acquired before the 2009 schedule amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 depends on the person's later involvement with proceeds of crime and is not defeated merely because the underlying assets were acquired before the scheduled offence was added to the statutory schedule.

---