Section 24(b) presumption applies in money laundering case as identification of proceeds not mandatory for prosecution

The Madras HC dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging denial of discharge in a money laundering case involving illegal granite quarrying valued at Rs. 261.89 crores. The court held that identification of proceeds of crime is not mandatory for prosecution under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as concealment itself constitutes the offence. Citing SC precedent in Rana Ayyub case, the court ruled that prosecution need only establish generation of proceeds and accused's involvement in related activities. The court applied presumption under Section 24(b) given the quantum involved, stating accused cannot escape liability by making proceeds disappear through "Houdini tricks."

---

---

Issues:
Money laundering offense, Proceeds of crime, Property purchased with proceeds of crime, Burden of proof under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Discharge petition dismissal.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a case where the revision petitioners were accused of committing offenses related to money laundering. The complainant alleged that the petitioners engaged in illegal quarrying activities, generating proceeds of crime valued at Rs. 261.89 crores. The petitioners were summoned under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and properties purchased with the unlawfully generated income were identified. One such property, a house in Kilpauk, was claimed to be untainted by the petitioners. However, the prosecution contended that the property was purchased with proceeds of crime. The court considered the ongoing nature of the offense of money laundering and the involvement of the petitioners in activities connected to the proceeds of crime. The prosecution argued that the concealment of proceeds of crime itself constitutes money laundering, irrespective of identifying the exact whereabouts of the money.

The court discussed the statutory definitions of money laundering and the requirement to establish the generation of proceeds of crime and the accused's involvement in activities related to such proceeds. The judgment highlighted that the Enforcement Directorate need not trace the money trail if the accused attempt to conceal the proceeds of crime. The court emphasized that the offense of money laundering can be established based on the involvement in concealing proceeds of crime, even if the exact location of the money is unknown. The judgment cited legal provisions regarding the burden of proof in cases related to proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Regarding the property purchased by the petitioners, the court invoked the presumption under Section 24(b) of the Act, considering the nature of the allegations and the amount of money involved. The court held that the presumption of the property being involved in money laundering must be rebutted by the petitioners during trial. The court upheld the decision of the lower court to dismiss the discharge petition filed by the revision petitioners, concluding that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against them. The judgment emphasized that interference with the lower court's order was not warranted in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and thus, the criminal revision petition was dismissed along with the connected miscellaneous petition.

---