Territorial jurisdiction in money-laundering cases may be concurrent, but the linked scheduled offence requires trial before the same Special Court.

Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires the money-laundering offence and connected scheduled offence to be tried by the Special Court with jurisdiction over the laundering offence. Where laundering-related acts occur across different local areas, the Code of Criminal Procedure permits trial in any area where part of the offence occurred. Acquisition of alleged proceeds at Gurugram supported jurisdiction there, while seizure or attachment of other alleged proceeds at Delhi supported concurrent Delhi jurisdiction. Because the scheduled offence had been transferred to Delhi, the notes state that trying both matters before the same Delhi PMLA Special Court was required and expedient.

---

---

Issues: Whether the PMLA prosecution had territorial jurisdiction at Gurugram and whether, in view of the scheduled offence having been transferred to Delhi and part of the alleged money-laundering activity occurring there, the proceeding should be transferred to the PMLA Special Court at Delhi.

Analysis: Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires the offence punishable under Section 4 and the connected scheduled offence to be tried by the Special Court having jurisdiction over the money-laundering offence. Money laundering may involve several processes or activities, including acquiring, concealing, possessing, using, or projecting proceeds of crime as untainted property. By virtue of Section 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence consisting of acts occurring in different local areas may be tried by a court having jurisdiction over any such area, and Section 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act applies the Code's procedure subject to consistency with the Act. The proceeds of crime were acquired at Gurugram, where the underlying project and attached land were situated, giving the Gurugram Special Court jurisdiction. However, cash, jewellery, vehicles, and fixed deposits constituting proceeds of crime were also seized or attached at Delhi, giving the Delhi Special Court concurrent jurisdiction. Since the scheduled offence had already been transferred to Delhi, the statutory requirement that the PMLA offence and the scheduled offence be tried by the same Special Court made transfer expedient in the interests of justice.

Conclusion: The PMLA prosecution was not without jurisdiction at Gurugram, but the proceeding was required to be transferred to the Special Judge, PMLA, Saket Court Complex, Delhi.

---