The offence of money laundering stands on two foundations — a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime derived from it. AMLEGALS tests both, because weaknesses in the foundation run through the entire case.
Every PMLA case rests on a chain: a scheduled offence generates criminal activity, that activity produces proceeds of crime, and dealing with those proceeds as untainted property constitutes money laundering. Remove any link in the chain and the case is in difficulty. That is why the most effective defences begin not with the money-laundering allegation itself, but with its foundations — whether a scheduled offence is genuinely made out, whether the property is truly derived from it, and how the proceeds and their value have been computed.
The dependence is not merely theoretical. The Supreme Court has recognised that discharge, acquittal or quashing of the scheduled offence removes the basis for a money-laundering case against that person in respect of those proceeds. The status of the predicate offence must therefore be tracked throughout, and the characterisation of property as proceeds of crime — or as property of equivalent value — must be held to proof. AMLEGALS builds the defence from these foundations outward.
Analysing whether a scheduled offence is genuinely made out as the predicate.
Testing whether property is derived from criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence.
Examining the computation of proceeds of crime and property of equivalent value.
Monitoring discharge, acquittal or quashing of the predicate offence and its effect.
Challenging the characterisation of unconnected property as proceeds of crime.
Translating weaknesses in the foundation into defence across attachment and trial.
Section 2(1)(u) defines proceeds of crime as any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, or the value of any such property, or where such property is taken or held outside the country, the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad. The definition is the gateway concept of the Act — if there are no proceeds of crime, there is no money laundering.
A scheduled offence under Section 2(1)(y) is an offence specified in the Schedule to the Act — drawn from several statutes including the penal law and various special laws. The scheduled offence is the predicate: it is the criminal activity that generates the proceeds of crime. Without a scheduled offence there can be no proceeds of crime, and therefore no offence of money laundering. Identifying and testing the scheduled offence is the first analytical step in any PMLA matter.
The Supreme Court has recognised that the offence of money laundering is dependent on the scheduled offence. If the person is discharged or acquitted of the scheduled offence, or the proceeding relating to it is quashed by a court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money laundering against that person in relation to those proceeds. The status of the predicate offence is therefore continuously relevant to the PMLA case.
The concept of proceeds of crime is tethered to criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Where property has no nexus to such activity, its characterisation as proceeds of crime is open to challenge. The Act does allow, where the actual proceeds are not traceable, attachment and confiscation of property of equivalent value — but the foundational link to a scheduled offence and to criminal activity must still be shown.
Because the entire edifice of a PMLA case rests on proceeds of crime arising from a scheduled offence, a rigorous defence begins by testing those foundations — whether a scheduled offence is genuinely made out, whether the property is genuinely derived from it, how the proceeds and their value are computed, and the status of the predicate proceeding. Weaknesses in the foundation ripple through the whole case.
No. No engagement is treated as accepted until conflicts, scope and terms are confirmed in writing.
Share the predicate offence and the property in question for a confidential preliminary assessment.