Prima facie scrutiny at discharge permits money-laundering prosecution to continue without adjudicating predicate offences or asset legitimacy.

At the discharge stage in money-laundering prosecutions, the court examines only whether the complaint and supporting material disclose a prima facie case or strong suspicion. Allegations that proceeds from illegal granite mining were used to acquire immovable property may satisfy the ingredients of money laundering without requiring detailed assessment of evidence, defences, asset legitimacy, or income sources. Statutory presumptions and the reverse burden relating to interconnected transactions and legitimate assets are matters for trial. The Special Court cannot assess the sustainability of pending predicate offences, and need not separately address every defence if it applies the determinative issue. Restoration of the predicate prosecution supported continuation of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to discharge from prosecution for money laundering on the ground that the predicate offences were allegedly unsustainable and the Special Judge had not separately addressed every defence.

Analysis: The allegations that proceeds from illegal granite mining were used to acquire immovable properties, if accepted at face value, disclosed the ingredients of money laundering. At the discharge stage, the enquiry is confined to whether the complaint and accompanying material disclose a prima facie case or strong suspicion; it does not extend to meticulous evaluation of evidence, adjudication of defences, or determination of the legitimacy of the assets and sources of income. The statutory presumptions and reverse burden concerning interconnected transactions and the legitimacy of assets are matters for trial. While the predicate proceedings remain pending, the Special Court cannot determine their correctness or sustainability; that question lies with the competent court trying those offences. An order is not defective merely because it does not separately answer each contention when it identifies and applies the determinative legal issue. The restoration of the predicate prosecution further supported continuation of the money-laundering proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to discharge; sufficient prima facie material existed to proceed with the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

---