Money-laundering proceedings can survive abatement of the predicate case, while restoration needs a bona fide claimant with quantifiable loss.

Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act remains independent, but it still depends on a legally subsisting scheduled offence and proceeds of crime; where the predicate case ends only by abatement due to the sole accused's death, continuation of the money-laundering proceedings may still be maintainable. Restoration of attached property under Section 8(8) is available only to a bona fide claimant who proves a legitimate interest, good faith, and a quantifiable loss caused by money laundering. An assignee of receivables cannot rely on the original party's loss alone to satisfy that requirement. On this analysis, attachment is not automatically lifted and restoration depends on strict compliance with the statutory and rule-based criteria.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prosecution under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could continue after the sole accused in the predicate offence died and the criminal case for the scheduled offence abated; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the attached property under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether prosecution under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could continue after the sole accused in the predicate offence died and the criminal case for the scheduled offence abated.

Analysis: Offences under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are independent and stand-alone, but they still require the existence of a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime. Where the scheduled offence ends in acquittal, discharge, or quashing of the proceedings in their entirety, the prosecution for money laundering cannot survive because the foundational scheduled offence no longer exists. On the facts, however, the complaint under the Act was filed against other accused for alleged concealment and use of proceeds of crime, and the continuation of proceedings was not defeated merely because the sole accused in the predicate case had died and the police report recorded abatement.

Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was maintainable and the contention based on abatement failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the attached property under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Restoration under Section 8(8) is available only to a claimant with a legitimate interest who has suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money laundering, acted in good faith, and is not involved in the offence. The petitioner's claim rested on an assignment of receivables arising from a commercial transaction, but the loss of the original contracting party could not be equated with a quantifiable loss suffered by the assignee for the purpose of restoration. The petitioner therefore did not satisfy the definition of claimant under the Restoration Rules, and the ancillary procedural requirements for considering restoration did not arise.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to restoration of the attached property under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Special Court's order failed on both the maintainability of the money-laundering prosecution and the claim for restoration of the attached property, leaving the attachment undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the money-laundering law may continue so long as the scheduled offence and proceeds of crime remain legally subsisting, and restoration of attached property is confined to a bona fide claimant who proves a quantifiable loss and a legitimate pre-existing interest in the property.

---