Article by Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court, Partner & Head of Intellectual Property Laws Division, Vaish Associates Advocates, India

In the intricate framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the symbiotic relationship between predicate offenses and the prosecution under Section 3 forms the bedrock of accountability and legality. This interplay, where the very foundation of a money laundering offense rests upon a predicate offense, elucidates the inseparable nature of these elements. In this exploration, we delve into the depths of the PMLA, dissecting the nuances of prosecution, predicate offenses, and the pivotal role they play within this legal landscape.

The Core of Section 3: Unveiling Predicate Offences

At the crux of the PMLA lies Section 3, which encapsulates the essence of money laundering offenses. However, this offense does not emerge in isolation; rather, it is intricately linked to a predicate offense. The predicate offense, essentially the underlying criminal activity that leads to illegal gains, serves as the bedrock upon which money laundering flourishes. This symbiotic connection ensures that money laundering is not a standalone offense but an extension of criminal activities that generate ill-gotten gains.

The Jurisdictional Link: A Legal Imperative

For prosecution under the PMLA to come to fruition, the crucial element of jurisdictional linkage with a predicate offense emerges as a linchpin. This entails that no person can be prosecuted under the assumption of a scheduled offense without the jurisdictional police being privy to the case. Moreover, pending enquiries or trials, including criminal complaints, must be underway within the competent forum. This stipulation establishes a robust framework to prevent arbitrary prosecution and safeguards against unfounded assumptions of criminal activities.

This legal imperative is a safeguard against the unwarranted prosecution of innocent individuals or the initiation of proceedings on a mere notional basis. By ensuring that a predicate offense is registered and actively under investigation, the PMLA underscores its commitment to a fair and just legal process that upholds the principles of natural justice.

The Discharge of Responsibility: Acquittal and Quashing

A cornerstone of justice is the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty. In the context of prosecution under the PMLA, this principle assumes a critical role. If a person facing charges related to a scheduled offense is eventually discharged or acquitted, the implications on any linked money laundering offense are profound. The law recognizes that the discharge or acquittal signifies the absence of guilt in the predicate offense, which directly impacts the prosecution for money laundering.

Additionally, if the criminal case against an individual is quashed by a court of competent jurisdiction, it acts as a decisive marker. This legal step reinforces the principle that a person cannot be held accountable for money laundering if the foundation of the predicate offense has been dismantled through the judicial process.

The Nexus of Fairness and Legal Integrity

The intricate dance between predicate offenses and the prosecution under the PMLA underscores the delicate balance between fairness and legal integrity. The law ensures that the process of money laundering prosecution remains grounded in tangible criminal activities, verified by proper authorities and jurisdictional oversight. This framework safeguards individuals from arbitrary or baseless allegations, ensuring that the weight of prosecution is borne only by those who have engaged in criminal conduct.

Furthermore, the link between predicate offenses and prosecution contributes to the greater goal of curbing financial impropriety. By directly tying money laundering offenses to underlying criminal activities, the PMLA effectively targets the ill-gotten gains stemming from a range of criminal conduct, from drug trafficking to corruption.

Conclusion: The Interplay of Elements

In the tapestry of the PMLA, the absence of prosecution under Section 3 in the absence of a predicate offense showcases the symbiotic nature of legal elements. It reflects the harmonious balance between legal accountability and the protection of individual rights. As jurisprudence continues to evolve, this nexus between predicate offenses and money laundering prosecution will remain a cornerstone of justice, guiding the trajectory of fair and equitable legal proceedings.


Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate

Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court

Email id:

Mobile No.: +91 9810081079



Twitter: @vpdalmia

© 2020, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.