Independent money-laundering prosecution may continue despite pending scheduled-offence proceedings, the High Court holds.

The offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is independent and targets the process connected with proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence. Although the existence of a scheduled offence is necessary, the prosecution need not await the conclusion of every proceeding arising from that offence. Where the scheduled offence had already led to conviction of the principal accused and the PMLA complaint was based on the alleged use of those proceeds, the money-laundering trial was not rendered unlawful merely because the petitioner's proceedings in the scheduled offence remained under challenge. The stay in the scheduled offence did not control the PMLA prosecution, and the request to defer the trial was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial for offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was required to be deferred until the proceedings in the scheduled offence concluded.

Analysis: The offence of money laundering is independent and concerns the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence. Existence of a scheduled offence is necessary, but the prosecution for money laundering does not have to await the result of every proceeding relating to the scheduled offence. Where the scheduled offence has already resulted in conviction of the principal accused and the complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is founded on alleged use of the proceeds of that offence, continuation of the money-laundering trial is not rendered unlawful merely because proceedings against the petitioner in the scheduled offence are separately under challenge. The stay operating in the scheduled offence therefore does not control the money-laundering prosecution.

Conclusion: The prayer to defer the money-laundering trial was rejected, and the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Prosecution for money laundering may proceed independently once proceeds of crime from a scheduled offence exist, and it is not contingent on the simultaneous conclusion of the scheduled-offence proceedings against the same person.

---