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

The intricate world of financial crimes often delves into the covert operations of money laundering, an art of disguising the origins of unlawfully acquired wealth. Central to this nefarious web is Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, an integral provision that dissects the anatomy of money laundering as a standalone offense. This legal framework encapsulates a web of elements that intricately define the offense, serving as a cornerstone in the fight against financial deception.

Unraveling the Nexus of Proceeds and Process

At the heart of the offense lies the interplay between criminal proceeds and the process or activity associated with them. The nexus between the two is pivotal to establish the crime of money laundering. A fundamental condition is that the property must align with the definition of "proceeds of crime," elucidated under Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act. This nexus is not a unilateral relationship; rather, it's a dynamic interplay where not all crime properties are proceeds of crime, but all proceeds of crime are, by definition, crime properties. This nuance underscores the intricate balance that must be struck to determine the status of the property.

A Matter of Adjudication

The legal saga takes a twist when it comes to the adjudication of the property in question. In instances where an individual is absolved or acquitted of criminal activity linked to a scheduled offense, the property's status comes into focus. If it's established in a court of law that the property is rightfully owned and possessed, it cannot be classified as proceeds of crime within the ambit of Section 2(1)(u). This judicial determination serves as a turning point where legal pronouncements dictate the property's classification, challenging the notion of labeling it as proceeds of crime post-adjudication.

The Role of Authority and the Threshold of Belief

The enforcement of the 2002 Act is underpinned by a crucial criterion: the existence of proceeds of crime. The authority vested in the Authorized Officer hinges on this pivotal factor. The initiation of prosecution, attachment, and confiscation of proceeds of crime rests on this foundation. It's a jurisdictional trigger that compels tangible and credible evidence substantiating the link between the individual and the process or activity connected to the proceeds of crime. This threshold of belief demands a reasoned assessment, a prerequisite for embarking on legal proceedings.

The Delicate Equilibrium of "And" and "Or"

Navigating the linguistic nuances of legal provisions can often unravel intricate debates. Section 3's wording introduces the term "and" after "use," crafting a delicate balance between the activities of concealment, possession, acquisition, and use. This conjunction implies that an individual engaging in any of these actions is not guilty of money laundering unless they attempt to project or claim the property as untainted. However, an intriguing conflict emerges when we delve into the explanation added to Section 3. Here, the term "or" follows point (d), creating an apparent discord with the substantive provision.

The Expansive Reach of Section 3

Section 3 of the 2002 Act casts a wide net, capturing all processes and activities linked to the proceeds of crime, whether directly or indirectly. This provision's scope isn't confined to the final act of integrating tainted property into the formal economy. Instead, it encompasses a broader spectrum of actions, establishing the offense's intricate layers. The 2019 amendment adds an explanation to Section 3, clarifying the wordplay between "and" and "or." This clarification reinforces the standalone nature of projecting or claiming the property as untainted, rendering it an independent process deserving of scrutiny1.


In the convoluted realm of financial crimes, Section 3 emerges as a critical linchpin in the battle against money laundering. From deciphering the relationship between proceeds of crime and the connected processes to navigating the labyrinthine play between "and" and "or," this provision encapsulates the nuances of the offense. The legal landscape is a complex tapestry, woven with judicial pronouncements and linguistic intricacies, but one thing remains clear—the offense of money laundering, as delineated in Section 3, is a dynamic entity that demands meticulous understanding and unflinching vigilance.


Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate

Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court

Email id:

Mobile No.: +91 9810081079



Twitter: @vpdalmia


1. Supreme Court of India in SLP (Criminal) no. 4634 OF 2014 titled Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of india & ors.

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

© 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.