Conviction for a predicate offence does not attract double jeopardy for subsequent prosecution under the PMLA.

The petitioners were accused in a predicate offense (Spl.C.C.No.123/2020) involving the illegal exchange of old demonetized currency notes for new notes for a premium following the 2016 demonetization

That trial resulted in their conviction, which is currently under appeal

Concurrently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and filed a complaint (Spl.C.C.No.233/2018) for offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)

The petitioners sought to quash the PMLA proceedings, arguing that since they were already convicted in the predicate offense, the subsequent trial under PMLA constitutes "double jeopardy" prohibited by law

1. Whether the continuation of proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, following a conviction in the predicate/scheduled offense, amounts to double jeopardy under Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution

Section 300 of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits a second trial for the "same offence" or on the "same facts" for any other offense where the law prohibits multiple trials

Section 3 of the PMLA, defining money laundering as an independent offense involving the process/activity connected to "proceeds of crime"

The court followed the precedent in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary v. Union of India, which established that money laundering is a distinct, independent offense not dependent on the date or timing of the scheduled offense

The court further adopted the reasoning from Division Bench judgments of the Madras High Court (C. Anandane v. ED) and Madhya Pradesh High Court (Hari Shankar Gurjar v. ED), which held that ingredients of PMLA offenses are distinct from IPC/Scheduled offenses, thus negating pleas of double jeopardy

The court reasoned that the doctrine of double jeopardy only applies when a person is sought to be tried twice for the "same offense" arising from identical facts

Applying the PMLA framework, the court found that Section 3 creates a distinct statutory offense regarding the laundering of proceeds, which is legally independent of the criminal activity constituting the predicate offense

The court noted that while the two are factually interconnected (as one provides the "proceeds"), the legal ingredients—such as concealment, possession, or projecting tainted money as untainted—are separate from the elements of the IPC crimes

Thus, the conviction in the predicate offense does not act as a bar; rather, it reinforces the existence of "proceeds of crime," allowing the Special Court to determine if those assets were laundered

The court distinguished the petitioners' citations, noting that Razorpay Software involved the failure of the predicate offense itself, whereas here, the predicate offense resulted in a conviction

The court held that Section 300 Cr.P.C. does not bar prosecution for a distinct offense under a different enactment

Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and the interim stay on the Special Court proceedings was dissolved