Money laundering proceedings survive where proceeds of crime continued after the amendment, and no pecuniary threshold applied to Part A offences.

Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were treated as maintainable even though the predicate fraud occurred before the schedule was amended on 1 June 2009, because the accused were still in possession and dealing with the proceeds of crime after the amendment took effect. The Court also held that no pecuniary jurisdiction objection arose for Part A offences, as the Act does not impose a monetary threshold for such cases and jurisdiction depends on the fraud and proceeds of crime, not merely the value of mortgaged property. The attachment and related proceedings were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained where the alleged predicate offences were committed before the schedule was amended with effect from 1 June 2009, but the appellants remained in possession of the proceeds of crime thereafter; (ii) Whether the proceedings lacked pecuniary jurisdiction on the ground that the value of the mortgaged properties was below the monetary threshold.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained where the alleged predicate offences were committed before the schedule was amended with effect from 1 June 2009, but the appellants remained in possession of the proceeds of crime thereafter.

Analysis: The alleged fraud was committed during 13 June 2005 to 16 May 2007, but the proceeds of crime were found to have remained with the appellants after the amendment to the schedule came into force. The decisive consideration was whether the appellants continued to possess the proceeds of crime after the Act and the amendment were in operation. Since the appellants were still dealing with the property and the proceeds of crime after 1 June 2009, the temporal objection based on the earlier commission period was not accepted.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held to be maintainable and the objection based on the pre-amendment period failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings lacked pecuniary jurisdiction on the ground that the value of the mortgaged properties was below the monetary threshold.

Analysis: The proceedings were treated as relating to offences under Part A of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for which no pecuniary limit applies. The Court further held that jurisdiction under the Act is tested with reference to the quantum of fraud and the proceeds of crime, not merely the value of the mortgaged immovable properties. On the facts, the amount involved was far above any relevant threshold in any event.

Conclusion: The pecuniary-jurisdiction challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in their entirety, and the attachment and consequential proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused remain in possession of the proceeds of crime after the relevant statutory regime is in force, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are not defeated merely because the predicate offence was committed earlier; and offences in Part A of the Schedule are not subject to a monetary threshold for jurisdiction.

---