Money-laundering discharge requires prima facie links to predicate-offence proceeds, while factual defences and valuation objections await trial.

In money-laundering proceedings, discharge is assessed by the existence of a scheduled predicate offence and prima facie material or strong suspicion linking the accused to proceeds of crime. Challenges to the predicate investigation, claims of independent income, and objections requiring factual evaluation are matters for trial rather than a discharge-stage mini-trial. Where valuation and loss quantification are prepared by authorised Geology and Mining Department officials, alleged defects are to be tested through evidence; a fresh expert valuation is not ordinarily required, particularly when quantification principally concerns the predicate offence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge from the prosecution for money laundering; (ii) Whether an expert should be appointed to conduct a fresh inspection and valuation of granite waste.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge from the prosecution for money laundering.

Analysis: For prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the relevant inquiry is whether a scheduled predicate offence exists and whether proceeds of crime arising from it are involved. Challenges to the legality or adequacy of the predicate-offence investigation cannot be adjudicated in the money-laundering prosecution. At discharge, the test is whether the materials disclose a prima facie case or strong suspicion; factual defences cannot be assessed through a mini-trial. The materials indicating that the petitioner held a 10.5% share, was a working partner, and had an interest in the business during the alleged illegal quarrying justified trial. The confirmation of attachment and the claim that the properties were acquired from independent income were matters requiring evidence at trial.

Conclusion: Discharge was rightly refused; the issue is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether an expert should be appointed to conduct a fresh inspection and valuation of granite waste.

Analysis: The valuation and loss quantification had been prepared by authorized Geology and Mining Department officials. Any defect in that report is a matter of evidence, and the prosecution must establish its case on the report it relies upon. A fresh expert report was not warranted, particularly as loss quantification principally concerns the predicate offence.

Conclusion: Appointment of a further expert was rightly declined; the issue is against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The money-laundering prosecution may proceed to trial on the available materials, with the petitioner's factual defences to be tested through evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: At the discharge stage in a money-laundering prosecution, the existence of a scheduled offence and prima facie material connecting the accused with proceeds of crime suffice; factual defences and challenges requiring evidentiary evaluation must await trial.

---