Drawing attention to large-scale property transactions running into several years and involving land parcels of substantial value, Mr. Agarwal submits that the materials collected by the ED disclose layering, movement, transfer and integration of properties far beyond a mere civil dispute regarding a sale deed. He contends that the pattern and volume of transactions give rise to a strong prima facie inference that the Petitioners were knowingly involved in activities connected with proceeds of crime, attracting Section 3 of the PMLA. He relies on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of Enforcement , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 158 to contend that a person need not be an accused in the scheduled offence to be prosecuted under the PMLA; it is sufficient if the scheduled offence survives in law and if the materials indicate the accused’s involvement in subsequent handling of illicit property. He further submits that courts have consistently held that the offence of money-laundering is a continuing offence, and that the quashing of cognizance qua one individual does not extinguish laundering activity which continues independently. It is thus urged that the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, perversity or abuse of process in the order of cognizance, and therefore no case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.
