Continuing money-laundering offence prevails over predicate-offence timing; challenge to attachment order failed.

For Section 3 PMLA, the relevant date is when a person engages in concealment, possession, use, or projection of proceeds of crime as untainted property, because money-laundering is a continuing offence. The Tribunal held that the predicate offence's status as a scheduled offence at the time of its commission did not defeat proceedings where the laundering activity continued after the statutory regime came into force. It also noted the existing conviction in the predicate case and that the ECIR was not quashed. On that basis, the challenge to the attachment order failed and the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 could succeed on the ground that the predicate offence was not a scheduled offence at the time of its commission, and whether proceedings under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 were barred by Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the relevant consideration for money-laundering is the date on which the person engages in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, not merely the date of the predicate offence. It accepted that the offence of money-laundering is of a continuing nature and that liability may arise where proceeds of crime are concealed, possessed, used, or projected as untainted property after the statutory regime has come into force. It further noted that the appellant had already been convicted in the predicate case and that the ECIR remained unquashed. On these facts, the plea that the predicate offence was not then scheduled did not defeat the proceedings.

Conclusion: The objection based on alleged non-scheduled status of the predicate offence at the time of commission was rejected, and the challenge to the impugned attachment order failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was held to be without merit because the alleged laundering activity was treated as a continuing offence governed by the date of the laundering act, not the date of the underlying predicate offence.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, the relevant date is when the accused deals with proceeds of crime in a continuing process of concealment, possession, use, or projection as untainted property, and not the date on which the predicate offence was committed.

---