Money-laundering attachment fails when accused is finally discharged in the predicate offence and proceeds of crime vanish.

Final discharge in the scheduled offence removed the statutory foundation for treating the attached assets as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. Because the money-laundering offence under Section 3 depends on property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, the Tribunal held that provisional attachment and its confirmation could not survive once the discharge order had attained finality. On that basis, the attachment and confirmation were unsustainable, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment and its confirmation under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 could continue after the accused in the predicate offence had been discharged.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the legal consequence of the discharge in the scheduled offence. The Tribunal relied on the settled principle that the offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 is dependent on property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, as reflected in the definition of "proceeds of crime" in Section 2(1)(u). Once the accused stood finally discharged in the predicate case and that order had attained finality, the foundation for treating the attached property as proceeds of crime no longer survived. In that situation, the attachment and confirmation based on the alleged scheduled offence could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment and its confirmation were unsustainable and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the person concerned is finally discharged in the scheduled offence, proceedings for money-laundering and attachment of property linked to that offence cannot continue because the alleged proceeds of crime lose their statutory foundation.

---