Money laundering remains an independent continuing offence; pending appeal in the predicate case does not justify a PMLA stay.

Money laundering under the PMLA is treated as a continuing and independent offence centred on the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. Pending appeal against conviction in the predicate offence does not, by itself, justify staying PMLA proceedings where the conviction has not been stayed. Questions about the existence of proceeds of crime and the applicability of Section 3 are matters for trial before the Special Court on evidence. The later inclusion of the scheduled offence in the PMLA schedule does not bar prosecution if the alleged dealings with proceeds of crime continued after it became a scheduled offence. Overlap with the predicate offence does not, on these facts, create double jeopardy or invalidate the prosecution.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 should be stayed pending the petitioner's appeal against conviction in the predicate offence; (ii) whether the challenge based on absence of proceeds of crime could justify staying the trial; (iii) whether the PMLA could be said to apply retrospectively to the scheduled offence in the facts of the case; and (iv) whether prosecution under the PMLA would amount to double jeopardy or otherwise be ultra vires because of overlap with the predicate offence.

Issue (i): whether the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 should be stayed pending the petitioner's appeal against conviction in the predicate offence.

Analysis: The conviction in the predicate offence had already been recorded by the trial court and had not been stayed. The pendency of the appeal, by itself, did not erase the existing finding of conviction. Since the predicate offence stood established for the present purpose, the continuation of the PMLA trial could not be halted merely because the appeal against conviction was still pending.

Conclusion: The request to stay the PMLA proceedings was rejected on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether the challenge based on absence of proceeds of crime could justify staying the trial.

Analysis: The existence of proceeds of crime and the applicability of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were treated as matters for trial to be determined by the Special Court on evidence. The complaint and charge order had already proceeded on the basis of an independent PMLA investigation and provisional attachment, and the Court declined to treat the absence of proceeds of crime as a ground for stay at that stage.

Conclusion: The request to stay the PMLA proceedings was rejected on this ground as well.

Issue (iii): whether the PMLA could be said to apply retrospectively to the scheduled offence in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court relied on the principle that money laundering is a continuing offence and is not dependent on the date of the predicate offence. The relevant date is when the person engages in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. The later inclusion of the scheduled offence in the PMLA schedule did not, by itself, bar prosecution where the alleged dealing with proceeds of crime continued after the offence became a scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The objection based on retrospective applicability was rejected.

Issue (iv): whether prosecution under the PMLA would amount to double jeopardy or otherwise be ultra vires because of overlap with the predicate offence.

Analysis: The Court treated money laundering as an independent offence concerned with the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. The offence under the PMLA is distinct from the scheduled offence, and the inclusion of the predicate offence in the schedule did not render the statute unconstitutional or offend the protection against double jeopardy on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The double jeopardy and ultra vires challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court found no basis to interdict the pending PMLA trial and upheld the continuation of the proceedings before the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Money laundering is a continuing and independent offence centered on the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, so the pendency of an appeal in the predicate offence or the timing of that offence does not, by itself, warrant a stay of PMLA proceedings.

---