2024 (2) TMI 734 - SCH - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - commission of eight predicate offences - proceeds of crime were derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relating to scheduled offences or not - HELD THAT - Prima facie, it is found that nothing is stated therein to even indicate that the proceeds of crime were derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relating to scheduled offences. The existence of proceeds of crime as defined in Section 2(u) of the PMLA Act is a condition precedent for the commission of offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA Act. Therefore, on the basis of material placed on record, as of today, as far as the appellant is concerned, it is found that both the grounds in clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of the PMLA Act have been satisfied in this case. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail, pending the disposal of the complaint under the PMLA Act - no adjudication made as regards the role played by any other accused in the same complaint. At highest, the allegation against the appellant is of possession of unaccounted money and illegal acquisition of immovable properties. But, prima facie, there is nothing to link the assets of the appellant with the predicate offences. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Accused in a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) seeking bail.

Summary:
The Supreme Court granted leave and heard arguments from both sides regarding the appellant's case under the PMLA Act. The appellant faced allegations of eight predicate offences under the PMLA Act. However, upon examination of the complaint, the Court found no indication that the proceeds of crime were linked to criminal activities related to scheduled offences, which are necessary for the offense of money laundering under the Act. Consequently, the Court determined that the grounds for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA Act were satisfied. The appellant was granted bail pending the disposal of the complaint. The Court clarified that it did not make any judgment regarding other accused individuals in the same complaint. The appellant was directed to appear before the Special Court within a week, with the Special Court having the authority to impose suitable bail terms and conditions after hearing from the Enforcement Directorate. The Court emphasized that its observations were limited to the bail request, leaving all other issues open for further consideration. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed.