Continuing money laundering offence: Supreme Court reiterates that prima facie material can justify refusal of discharge in PMLA proceedings.

Money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is described as an independent, continuing offence that persists while proceeds of crime are concealed, possessed, used, or projected as untainted property. The relevant inquiry is tied to the continued handling of those proceeds, not only to the date of the predicate offence or the insertion of scheduled offences. At the discharge or charge stage, the Court noted that only a prima facie assessment is required, and the record here was said to disclose sufficient material, including alleged layering of funds and related transactions, to justify trial and refusal of discharge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained on the ground that the alleged laundering was a continuing offence despite the predicate acts having originated before the Act or before certain scheduled offences were inserted in the Schedule; and whether the rejection of discharge could be interfered with when the material disclosed a prima facie case and the alleged proceeds of crime exceeded the statutory threshold.

Analysis: The Court held that the offence of money laundering is independent and continuing in nature so long as the proceeds of crime are concealed, possessed, used, or projected as untainted property. The relevant date is not confined to the date of the predicate offence, but to the continued dealing with proceeds of crime. The Court further noted that the record disclosed substantial material indicating that the alleged financial trail, including land allotment transactions, alleged gratification, and related layering of funds, prima facie exceeded the monetary threshold then applicable and warranted trial. At the stage of discharge or charge framing, the Court emphasized that only a prima facie assessment is required and the probative value of evidence is not to be finally adjudicated.

Conclusion: The challenge to the PMLA proceedings failed. The Court found that the allegation of money laundering was maintainable as a continuing offence and that the material justified refusal of discharge.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was required to face trial, and the revisional interference sought against the refusal of discharge was unwarranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a continuing offence that persists so long as proceeds of crime are retained, concealed, used, or projected as untainted, and at the discharge stage the court need only determine whether the record discloses a prima facie case.

---