PMLA proceeds of crime and prolonged pre-trial incarceration can justify bail despite strict statutory conditions.

PMLA liability turns on whether the property is prima facie shown to be "proceeds of crime", meaning property derived directly or indirectly from a completed scheduled offence; funds collected before the alleged scheduled offence and without dominion or control over the alleged proceeds may not satisfy that threshold. The document also notes that, despite stringent bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, prolonged pre-trial incarceration and a likely long delay in trial can justify bail under Article 21, where continued detention would be unreasonable. The merits of the prosecution remain open for trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged collection and deposit of funds by the petitioners constituted 'proceeds of crime' so as to attract the offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in view of prolonged incarceration and the likely delay in conclusion of trial, notwithstanding the stringent bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged collection and deposit of funds by the petitioners constituted 'proceeds of crime' so as to attract the offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The expression 'proceeds of crime' was treated as the core ingredient of the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and was held to mean property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The funds alleged against the petitioners were found to have been collected before the alleged scheduled offence and not as a result of it. On that basis, the Court held that the complaint did not, prima facie, establish that the petitioners had generated or dealt with proceeds of crime in the manner required by the statute. The Court also noted that the petitioners, on the admitted case of the prosecution, had only collected and deposited the funds and did not have dominion and control over the alleged proceeds.

Conclusion: The offence of money laundering was not made out against the petitioners, prima facie, and the statutory threshold under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 stood satisfied in their favour.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in view of prolonged incarceration and the likely delay in conclusion of trial, notwithstanding the stringent bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court relied on the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It held that stringent statutory restrictions cannot justify continued incarceration for an unreasonably long period where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. Considering the custody already undergone, the large number of witnesses and voluminous documentary material, the Court found that the trial would take considerable time and that the constitutional right to liberty warranted release on bail.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were allowed and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions, with the merits of the case left open for trial.

Ratio Decidendi: For money-laundering liability, the property must be shown, prima facie, to have been derived or obtained as a result of a completed scheduled offence, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration may justify bail where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time despite statutory restrictions.

---