Prosecution for money laundering after conviction for predicate offences is not double jeopardy: Karnataka High Court
When a person is convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or other laws, which are described as a scheduled offence/predicate offence under
When a person is convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or other laws, which are described as a scheduled offence/predicate offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the subsequent prosecution of such convicted persons exclusively under the provisions of the PMLA does not amount to second trial for the same offences, said the High Court of Karnataka. “The prosecution under the PMLA is neither the second trial for the same offence nor a Constitutional transgression.
The offence under the PMLA derives its existence from the laundering of proceeds of crime, though emanating from the commission of predicate offence,” the court observed. Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing the petitions filed by 11 persons, who were convicted for various offences under the IPC, for looting some persons in 2016 in the guise of exchanging the demonetised notes, and cheating the people of several lakhs of rupees The convicted petitioners are Dilip alias JCB Dilipa, Aananda D.B alias CCTV Ananda, Rajesh D.M. alias Raji, Ananda alias Mysurammana Mommaga, Umesh R.K. alias Bonda, Channakeshava C.
alias Sanju, Cheluvaraju C.S. alias Onduvare, Mahadevaswamy D.R. alias Keera, Purushothma D.R. alias Purushi, Babu D.G., and Ramalinga alias Buka. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for six years in 2024 by the trial court, and their appeals against conviction are pending before the High Court. “It is a prosecution of an independent statutory offence (under PMLA),
in which the petitioners have to come out clean in a full blown proceeding before the special court, as the prohibition under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code extends only to a second trial for the same offence and not to a prosecution for a distinct offence under another enactment,” the High Court said while dismissing their petition.
The BriefWire