Criminal Conspiracy as a PMLA Scheduled Offence After Pavana Dibbur: When Section 120B IPC / Section 61 BNS: Delhi Procedure and Defence Guide

PMLA • Criminal Conspiracy • Section 120B IPC • Section 61 BNS • Pavana Dibbur

After Pavana Dibbur, the words “criminal conspiracy” cannot operate as a universal gateway into the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. The critical enquiry is the object of the alleged conspiracy: what offence were the accused allegedly agreeing to commit, and is that offence itself legally included in the PMLA Schedule?

Research and professional guidance by

Current legal review: 18 August 2026

Direct Answer

After the Supreme Court's decision in Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, Section 120B IPC cannot be treated as an independent PMLA scheduled-offence gateway merely because “criminal conspiracy” has been alleged.

The controlling question is:

WHAT OFFENCE WAS THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY?

Section 120B IPC can supply the scheduled-offence foundation only where the alleged conspiracy is to commit an offence which is itself otherwise included in Part A, Part B or Part C of the PMLA Schedule.

Therefore:

CONSPIRACY TO A SCHEDULED OFFENCE → MAY SATISFY THE SCHEDULED-OFFENCE GATE.

CONSPIRACY ONLY TO A NON-SCHEDULED OFFENCE → SECTION 120B DOES NOT CONVERT IT INTO A PMLA PREDICATE.

Even where the object offence is scheduled, that is only the first statutory gate. ED must still identify “proceeds of crime” derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence, and thereafter establish the particular Section 3 process or activity attributed to the PMLA accused.

For post-1 July 2024 offences, Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is now the general criminal-conspiracy provision. Pavana itself interpreted Section 120B IPC, so BNS-era cases require a fresh mapping of Section 61, the corresponding object offence, the PMLA Schedule and the applicable repeal/savings and transitional framework.

Quick Navigation

1. What exactly did Pavana Dibbur hold?
2. Why the object offence controls
3. The three-gate PMLA conspiracy test
4. Can Section 120B stand alone?
5. Parts A, B and C: thresholds and qualifications
6. FIR vs charge-sheet
7. Ten predicate drafting defects
8. Effect on ECIR and PMLA prosecution
9. Scheduled offence is not enough: proceeds are still required
10. PMLA accused need not be predicate accused
11. Section 61 BNS after 1 July 2024
12. Object-offence matrix
13. How to audit the predicate case
14. Document checklist
15. Practical examples
16. Frequently asked questions

What Exactly Did Pavana Dibbur Change?

Before Pavana Dibbur, a broad prosecution argument was available: Section 120B IPC itself appeared in Part A of the PMLA Schedule; therefore any prosecution containing Section 120B could potentially supply a scheduled offence even if the substantive object of the conspiracy was not independently scheduled.

The Supreme Court rejected that construction.

Why?

Because it would effectively destroy the selectivity built into the PMLA Schedule.

If conspiracy to commit any criminal offence automatically became scheduled merely because Section 120B was added, then offences deliberately excluded from Parts A and B could be brought into PMLA indirectly.

The Court therefore held that Section 120B becomes a scheduled offence only where the conspiracy alleged is to commit an offence which is otherwise specifically included in the Schedule.

Pavana Dibbur Rule

DO NOT ASK ONLY:
“Is Section 120B written in the FIR?”

ASK:
“What is the object offence of the alleged conspiracy, and is that offence independently scheduled?”

The Object Offence Is the Centre of the Analysis

Criminal conspiracy is based upon an agreement directed towards an unlawful object or towards accomplishing an otherwise lawful object through unlawful means.

For PMLA purposes, that makes the “object offence” crucial.

Example A — Conspiracy to commit a scheduled offence

Assume:

Accused A + B allegedly agree to commit Offence X.
Offence X is expressly included in Part A of the PMLA Schedule.

The conspiracy allegation may potentially supply a scheduled-offence foundation, subject to the actual statutory wording, facts and existence of proceeds of crime.

Example B — Conspiracy to commit only a non-scheduled offence

Accused A + B allegedly conspire to commit Offence Y.
Offence Y is not otherwise within Parts A, B or C.

Adding Section 120B IPC cannot itself transform Offence Y into a scheduled offence after Pavana.

Example C — Several object offences

The prosecution alleges conspiracy to commit:

• Scheduled Offence X;
• Non-Scheduled Offence Y;
• Non-Scheduled Offence Z.

PMLA analysis should isolate the conspiracy insofar as it relates to Scheduled Offence X and then determine what property, if any, was generated by criminal activity relating to that scheduled offence.

The Three-Gate Test for Criminal Conspiracy Under PMLA

Gate 1 — Scheduled-Offence / Object Gate

Identify:

CONSPIRACY → OBJECT OFFENCE → SCHEDULE STATUS.

Questions:

• What precisely did the conspirators allegedly agree to commit?
• Where is that allegation pleaded?
• Is the object offence in Part A?
• If Part B applies, are its statutory conditions satisfied?
• If Part C is relied upon, do the required cross-border implications exist?

If no qualifying object offence exists, Pavana prevents Section 120B from acting as a universal substitute.

Gate 2 — Proceeds-of-Crime Gate

A valid scheduled offence does not itself complete the PMLA case.

Identify:

SCHEDULED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY → PROPERTY DERIVED / OBTAINED → PROCEEDS OF CRIME.

Ask:

• What property was generated?
• When?
• By what criminal activity?
• What is the money/property trail?
• Is there a causal connection with the scheduled object offence?

Gate 3 — Section 3 Laundering Gate

Only after identifying proceeds should the prosecution analyse:

• concealment;
• possession;
• acquisition;
• use;
• projecting as untainted;
• claiming as untainted;
• attempt;
• knowing assistance;
• knowing party participation;
• actual involvement.

VALID OBJECT OFFENCE
↓
SCHEDULED CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
↓
PROCEEDS OF CRIME
↓
SECTION 3 PROCESS / ACTIVITY

Can Section 120B IPC Be Used as a Stand-Alone PMLA Scheduled Offence?

Not in the broad sense rejected by Pavana Dibbur.

Writing:

“Section 120B IPC”

does not answer:

“Conspiracy to commit which offence?”

A predicate case that does not identify the object offence creates a fundamental PMLA problem because the court cannot determine whether the conspiracy is directed towards an offence otherwise contained in Parts A, B or C.

Weak pleading

“The accused entered into criminal conspiracy and committed various illegal acts.”

Better particularisation

“The accused allegedly entered into an agreement to commit Offence X; Offence X is the substantive object alleged in paragraphs __ to __ of the charge-sheet.”

Only then can the PMLA Schedule be meaningfully applied.

Important: The PMLA complaint should not cure a missing scheduled object by simply recasting a vague predicate conspiracy into a different offence which the predicate agency never actually alleged. The predicate material and its current judicial status must be examined.

Part A, Part B and Part C: Pavana Prevents Conspiracy From Bypassing Statutory Conditions

One of the strongest parts of Pavana's reasoning is its treatment of the structure of the Schedule itself.

Part A

If the object offence is independently included in Part A, the first object-offence test may be satisfied, subject to the precise Schedule wording and facts.

Part B

Where the relevant statutory regime makes an offence scheduled only after satisfying a monetary or other qualification, the conspiracy provision cannot responsibly be used to bypass that qualification.

Pavana itself illustrated the problem through the then-applicable Part B Customs Act example: accepting the broad ED interpretation would have allowed Section 120B to defeat the statutory threshold selected by Parliament.

Part C

Some offences acquire scheduled status only where the legally prescribed cross-border implications exist.

A conspiracy charge cannot simply make the cross-border requirement disappear.

Object-offence rule:

First ask whether the object offence itself qualifies under the Schedule in the facts of the case.

Only then ask whether conspiracy to commit that offence can provide the predicate foundation.

FIR vs Charge-Sheet: Pavana Shows Why the Final Predicate Record Matters

An FIR may initially contain a scheduled offence.

But what if investigation later drops it?

That happened materially in Pavana Dibbur.

One FIR included Section 420 IPC, but the eventual charge-sheet excluded that section and proceeded under provisions including Section 120B with other non-scheduled offences.

This means counsel should never stop at the FIR.

Predicate-status checklist

• What sections were in the FIR?
• What sections survived the police investigation?
• What sections appear in the final report/charge-sheet?
• Was a supplementary charge-sheet filed?
• Did the court take cognizance of the scheduled offence?
• Was that offence subsequently discharged?
• Was the predicate proceeding quashed?
• Was a closure report accepted?
• Does another independently valid scheduled offence remain?

The Practical Rule

FIR LABEL ≠ PERMANENT PMLA FOUNDATION.

The scheduled-offence foundation must be tested against the actual surviving predicate prosecution.

Ten Drafting Defects in Predicate Conspiracy Cases

Defect	Why It Matters After Pavana	Audit Question
1. 120B without object offence	The Schedule status cannot be determined in the abstract.	Conspiracy to commit what?
2. Object offence expressly non-scheduled	120B cannot universally convert it into a scheduled offence.	Where is the independent Schedule entry?
3. Scheduled section appears only in FIR	Investigation may have dropped the actual predicate foundation.	Does it survive in the charge-sheet?
4. Charge-sheet retains only 120B + non-scheduled offences	This is close to the Pavana problem.	What scheduled object remains?
5. Object offence described vaguely	Court cannot reliably apply Parts A/B/C.	Is the substantive offence particularised?
6. Part B qualification ignored	Conspiracy should not defeat a statutory threshold.	Does the object offence independently qualify?
7. Part C requirement ignored	Cross-border qualification cannot be presumed.	What facts establish the Part C condition?
8. Predicate offence later quashed/discharged	The scheduled foundation may disappear.	Does any other scheduled offence survive?
9. PMLA complaint invents a new object offence	The laundering theory must rest on an actual scheduled predicate.	Where is this offence alleged in the predicate record?
10. IPC/BNS mismatch	Post-1 July 2024 cases require correct substantive and transitional analysis.	Which penal law governs the conduct?

How a Defective Conspiracy Foundation Affects the ECIR and PMLA Prosecution Theory

This issue should be analysed as a statutory chain.

NO VALID SCHEDULED OBJECT OFFENCE
↓
NO VALID SCHEDULED-OFFENCE FOUNDATION ON THAT THEORY
↓
NO “PROCEEDS OF CRIME” CAN ARISE FROM THAT NON-QUALIFYING PREDICATE THEORY
↓
SECTION 3 CANNOT OPERATE WITHOUT PROCEEDS OF CRIME
↓
PMLA PROSECUTION BASED ONLY ON THAT FOUNDATION FAILS

That is stronger and more precise than simply arguing:

“120B was wrongly mentioned, therefore ECIR automatically disappears.”

An ECIR is part of ED's investigative architecture; the substantive challenge concerns whether ED has a legally valid scheduled offence, qualifying proceeds of crime and a Section 3 theory.

The following must therefore be compared side by side:

• predicate FIR;
• predicate complaint;
• charge-sheet;
• supplementary charge-sheet;
• cognizance order;
• ECIR references appearing in available papers;
• Section 50 summons;
• PAO/OA where applicable;
• PMLA prosecution complaint.

Critical inconsistency

If the PMLA complaint says:

“Proceeds arose from scheduled conspiracy to commit Offence X”

but the predicate charge-sheet says only:

“Conspiracy to commit Non-Scheduled Offence Y,”

the prosecution should be required to explain the statutory foundation.

Do not overstate the remedy. Pavana quashed the PMLA complaint insofar as the appellant was concerned because the scheduled-offence foundation was absent. The appropriate procedural remedy in another case depends on the actual proceeding, stage, jurisdiction and later developments in the predicate case.

A Valid Conspiracy Predicate Still Does Not Automatically Create “Proceeds of Crime”

This is the second major safeguard.

Suppose:

Section 120B
+
Scheduled Offence X.

Gate 1 may be satisfied.

But there must still be property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to that scheduled offence.

A conspiracy may be legally complete as an offence without necessarily generating property.

Therefore:

SCHEDULED CONSPIRACY ≠ AUTOMATIC PROCEEDS OF CRIME.

The next questions are:

• What property was generated?
• Who obtained it?
• When?
• How did the scheduled activity cause that property?
• What is its value?
• Was the property subsequently transferred or converted?
• What process/activity under Section 3 is attributed to the PMLA accused?

A complete PMLA prosecution therefore needs more than a correctly drafted Section 120B predicate.

The PMLA Accused Need Not Be an Accused in the Predicate Conspiracy

Pavana also resolved another important issue.

The person accused of money-laundering need not necessarily have been arrayed as an accused in the scheduled offence.

A later person can potentially become involved after the proceeds have already been generated—for example by allegedly knowingly assisting their concealment or use.

Therefore two propositions must not be confused:

Proposition	Correct Analysis
“My client is not accused in the predicate conspiracy.”	Relevant fact, but not automatically fatal to Section 3.
“There is no legally valid scheduled offence at all.”	Foundational problem because proceeds of crime require scheduled criminal activity.

Thus, the correct defence question is not merely:

“Is my client named in the predicate FIR?”

It is:

“Does a valid scheduled predicate exist, what proceeds did it generate, and what later laundering activity is attributed to my client?”

Section 61 BNS After 1 July 2024: The New Criminal-Conspiracy Provision

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. Section 61 now contains the general substantive provision dealing with criminal conspiracy for BNS-era offences.

Section 61 retains the essential structure familiar from Sections 120A/120B IPC:

• agreement between two or more persons;
• common object to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means;
• a distinction concerning agreement to commit an offence and other forms of conspiracy;
• punishment linked, in serious cases, to the object offence.

But Pavana must be used carefully

Pavana Dibbur directly interpreted:

SECTION 120B IPC + THE PMLA SCHEDULE.

It did not adjudicate a post-1 July 2024 prosecution under Section 61 BNS.

Therefore, for a BNS-era matter, counsel should perform a fresh statutory map:

Question	What to Verify
Which conspiracy provision applies?	IPC 120B or BNS Section 61 depending on date/savings.
What is the object offence?	Exact BNS or other statutory provision.
Is that object scheduled?	Current/historically applicable PMLA Schedule.
Has an older IPC reference been repealed/re-enacted?	BNS repeal/savings and applicable General Clauses Act principles.
Is there a transitional prosecution?	Date of conduct, FIR, investigation and applicable saving provisions.

Accuracy safeguard: It is reasonable to use Pavana's object-offence reasoning when analysing the corresponding BNS conspiracy structure, but do not falsely write that “the Supreme Court in Pavana held Section 61 BNS is scheduled.” Section 61 did not govern the case before the Court.

The Criminal-Conspiracy Object-Offence Matrix

Conspiracy Allegation	Object-Offence Status	Possible PMLA Position
120B + offence expressly in Part A	Scheduled	Potential scheduled foundation; proceeds and Section 3 still separately required.
120B + offence not in Parts A/B/C	Non-scheduled	120B cannot alone convert it after Pavana.
120B + Part-B offence below required threshold	Qualification not satisfied	Conspiracy should not be used to defeat the statutory threshold.
120B + property offence qualifying only with cross-border implications	Depends on Part C facts	Cross-border statutory condition must actually exist.
FIR: 120B + scheduled offence; charge-sheet drops scheduled offence	Reassess	Examine whether any scheduled object survives.
120B only; object offence unspecified	Indeterminate / defective pleading	Require identification of object before treating conspiracy as scheduled.
120B + several offences, one independently scheduled	Potentially mixed	Identify conspiracy relating to scheduled object and resulting proceeds separately.
Section 61 BNS + post-2024 object offence	Requires current statutory mapping	Verify corresponding object, PMLA Schedule and transitional law; do not mechanically apply IPC labels.

How to Audit a Predicate Case After Pavana Dibbur

Step 1 — Obtain the complete FIR

Circle every penal provision.

Step 2 — Identify the conspiracy allegation

Find the paragraph actually describing the agreement.

Step 3 — Write the object offence in one sentence

Example:

“The prosecution alleges that A, B and C agreed to commit ______.”

If the blank cannot be filled from the predicate papers, record the defect.

Step 4 — Verify Schedule status

Do not rely upon memory. Check:

• Part A;
• Part B;
• Part C;
• historical Schedule version;
• threshold;
• cross-border qualification.

Step 5 — Compare the charge-sheet

Prepare:

FIR SECTION → FINAL CHARGE-SHEET SECTION → CURRENT STATUS.

Step 6 — Examine cognizance

What predicate offences actually proceeded before the competent court?

Step 7 — Compare with the ECIR/PMLA papers

Does ED rely upon the same scheduled offence?

Step 8 — Identify proceeds generated

Do not jump directly from conspiracy to money-laundering.

Step 9 — Identify accused-specific Section 3 conduct

Separate:

predicate conspiracy
from
laundering participation.

Step 10 — Update the analysis whenever the predicate case changes

A discharge, quashing, closure report or altered charge can materially change the PMLA foundation.

Prosecution-Complaint Audit: A One-Page Practitioner Table

Question	Predicate Record	ED/PMLA Record	Defence Issue
What is the conspiracy?	Para ___	Para ___	Are both describing the same agreement?
What is the object offence?	Section ___	Section ___	Is ED changing the object?
Is the object scheduled?	Part ___	Claimed Part ___	Check exact Schedule.
Threshold / qualification?	₹ / cross-border facts	ED allegation	Has a statutory condition been bypassed?
What proceeds resulted?	₹ / property ___	POC ₹___	Trace causal nexus.
What Section 3 act?	Not predicate issue	Concealment/use/etc.	Accused-specific evidence?
Current predicate status?	Pending / quashed / discharged etc.	Does PMLA complaint reflect update?	Reassess foundation.

Documents to Obtain Before Raising a Pavana Dibbur Objection

Predicate FIR Complete FIR, not merely online case details. Predicate Complaint Where prosecution originates from a statutory complaint rather than police FIR. Final Charge-Sheet Critical to identify which offences actually survived. Supplementary Charge-Sheet Check later additions or deletions. Cognizance Order Identify offences actually taken forward by the court. Discharge / Quashing / Closure Orders Scheduled foundation may have changed. Historical PMLA Schedule Use the version relevant to the case. ECIR References Use documents lawfully available; compare the predicate basis relied upon by ED. Section 50 Summons / Statements Check how ED characterises the scheduled offence. PAO / OA Check the scheduled-offence and POC narrative used for attachment. PMLA Prosecution Complaint Audit every paragraph identifying the predicate offence and proceeds. BNS / IPC Transition Material For post-1 July 2024 or transitional matters, verify the governing substantive law.

Seven Practical Examples

Example 1 — 120B + Scheduled Fraud

The predicate case specifically alleges an agreement to commit an offence expressly included in the PMLA Schedule.

Pavana does not eliminate the conspiracy predicate. ED must still establish proceeds generated by that scheduled activity and a Section 3 process/activity.

Example 2 — 120B + Only Non-Scheduled Wrongdoing

The charge-sheet alleges conspiracy to commit an offence outside Parts A/B/C.

Section 120B cannot itself convert the underlying offence into a scheduled offence merely by its addition.

Example 3 — FIR Contains Scheduled Offence, Charge-Sheet Drops It

FIR: 120B + scheduled offence.

Charge-sheet: 120B + only non-scheduled offences.

This requires immediate Pavana analysis because the original FIR label may no longer provide the necessary foundation.

Example 4 — Vague “Illegal Conspiracy”

Charge-sheet alleges that the accused “conspired to commit illegal activities” but never identifies an object offence included in the PMLA Schedule.

The prosecution should be required to identify the exact object before Section 120B is treated as a scheduled predicate.

Example 5 — Part-B Qualification Missing

The object offence qualifies under the relevant Part only if a statutory threshold is met.

The prosecution should not use the conspiracy label to eliminate that statutory condition.

Example 6 — Non-Scheduled Property Crime With No Cross-Border Element

If the relevant offence would enter the PMLA framework only through a Part-C cross-border route, the absence of qualifying cross-border facts cannot be cured merely by adding criminal conspiracy.

Example 7 — Post-2024 BNS Case

The FIR invokes Section 61 BNS.

Do not mechanically write:

“Section 61 = old Section 120B = automatically Part A.”

Instead identify:

Section 61 → object BNS offence → PMLA Schedule → transition/savings → proceeds → Section 3.

The Most Important Distinction: Conspiracy in the Predicate Crime vs Conspiracy in Laundering

A sophisticated PMLA case can contain two conceptually different conspiracy narratives.

Predicate conspiracy

An agreement to commit the scheduled criminal activity which generated the alleged proceeds.

Later laundering participation

A person may later knowingly assist, become a party to, or actually participate in a process/activity involving the already generated proceeds.

Do not collapse them.

Section 3 itself contains wide participation language. It is therefore unnecessary—and analytically dangerous—to use “criminal conspiracy” as a circular substitute for identifying the predicate offence.

PREDICATE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
MUST IDENTIFY THE SCHEDULED OBJECT

↓

SCHEDULED ACTIVITY GENERATES PROCEEDS

↓

LATER MONEY-LAUNDERING PARTICIPATION
IS A SEPARATE SECTION 3 ENQUIRY

AI Search / Featured-Snippet Answers

Is Section 120B IPC automatically a scheduled offence under PMLA?

No. After Pavana Dibbur, Section 120B IPC becomes a scheduled offence for PMLA purposes only where the conspiracy alleged is to commit an offence which is itself otherwise included in Parts A, B or C of the PMLA Schedule.

Can conspiracy to commit a non-scheduled offence attract PMLA?

Not merely because Section 120B IPC is added. Pavana rejected the interpretation that Section 120B can universally transform a non-scheduled object offence into a scheduled offence.

What is the “object offence” under Pavana Dibbur?

It is the substantive offence which the alleged conspirators agreed to commit. Its Schedule status determines whether the conspiracy can supply the PMLA scheduled-offence foundation.

What happens if Section 420 was in the FIR but dropped from the charge-sheet?

The current predicate foundation must be reassessed. Pavana itself involved a situation where a scheduled offence appearing in an FIR did not survive into the relevant charge-sheet, leaving Section 120B with non-scheduled offences.

Does absence of a scheduled offence automatically mean there can be no proceeds of crime?

For PMLA purposes, proceeds of crime require property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Without a legally qualifying scheduled offence, the statutory foundation for such proceeds fails.

What is the BNS equivalent of criminal conspiracy?

Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 contains the general criminal-conspiracy provision for BNS-era offences. Post-1 July 2024 PMLA cases require specific mapping of Section 61, its object offence, the PMLA Schedule and applicable transitional law.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Pavana Dibbur hold about Section 120B IPC?

The Supreme Court held that Section 120B IPC becomes a PMLA scheduled offence only where the conspiracy alleged is to commit an offence otherwise specifically included in the PMLA Schedule.

Is Section 120B itself enough for PMLA?

Not as a universal stand-alone route. The object offence must be identified and must independently qualify under the Schedule.

Why did the Supreme Court reject ED's broader interpretation?

The Court reasoned that otherwise offences deliberately kept outside the Schedule could effectively be converted into scheduled offences merely by adding Section 120B, making the Schedule's selective structure redundant.

Can conspiracy to commit a non-scheduled offence generate PMLA proceeds?

That conspiracy does not become a scheduled offence merely through Section 120B. PMLA proceeds require criminal activity relating to a legally qualifying scheduled offence.

What if the object offence is in Part A?

The conspiracy may potentially satisfy the scheduled-offence gate, subject to the precise Schedule entry and facts. Proceeds of crime and Section 3 conduct must still be independently established.

What if the object offence qualifies only under Part B?

The applicable statutory conditions or threshold must be satisfied. A conspiracy charge should not be used to bypass the qualification governing the object offence.

What if the object offence becomes scheduled only because of cross-border implications?

The legally required cross-border facts must be established. Criminal conspiracy should not remove the underlying Part-C condition.

What if a scheduled offence appears in the FIR but disappears from the charge-sheet?

The surviving predicate case must be examined. A scheduled allegation in the FIR cannot simply be assumed to remain the PMLA foundation after investigation has dropped it.

Can ED identify a different scheduled offence which is not actually part of the predicate case?

The PMLA theory must rest on a legally existing scheduled offence. Any mismatch between the predicate record and ED's description should be scrutinised carefully rather than assumed to be valid.

Does no scheduled offence mean no money-laundering?

Section 3 operates upon proceeds of crime, and proceeds of crime require criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Absence of that statutory foundation is therefore fundamental.

Can someone be prosecuted under PMLA even though not named in the predicate conspiracy?

Potentially yes. Pavana confirms that a Section 3 accused need not necessarily be an accused in the scheduled offence. The later person's own conduct involving proceeds must still satisfy Section 3.

What happens if all proceedings concerning the scheduled offence are quashed?

Pavana states that even a PMLA accused who was not a predicate accused receives the benefit where all accused in the scheduled offence are acquitted or discharged, and similarly where the scheduled-offence proceedings are quashed.

Is Section 61 BNS automatically treated exactly like Section 120B IPC for PMLA?

That should not be asserted mechanically. Section 61 is the BNS criminal-conspiracy provision, but Pavana directly interpreted Section 120B IPC. A post-BNS PMLA case requires current Schedule and transitional analysis.

What documents are most important for a Pavana Dibbur argument?

The complete predicate FIR, final and supplementary charge-sheets, cognizance order, applicable PMLA Schedule, any discharge/quashing/closure order, and the PMLA prosecution complaint are essential starting documents.

Can ED cure a non-scheduled predicate by alleging that the accused conspired to launder money?

The analysis cannot be circular. Section 3 presupposes proceeds of crime, and those proceeds require criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The predicate foundation must therefore be identified independently.

What is the strongest first question in a Section 120B PMLA case?

“Identify the precise offence which was the object of the alleged conspiracy and show where that offence independently appears in the applicable PMLA Schedule.”

Official Legal Sources

• Supreme Court of India — Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1029
• India Code — Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
• India Code — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
• Supreme Court of India

Legal Disclaimer: This is a general legal research and awareness article and does not constitute case-specific legal advice. Whether criminal conspiracy can supply a PMLA scheduled-offence foundation depends upon the exact object offence, applicable version of the PMLA Schedule, predicate FIR/complaint, final charge-sheet, cognizance and subsequent orders, monetary or cross-border qualifications where applicable, the existence of proceeds of crime, the accused-specific Section 3 conduct and current binding law. Pavana Dibbur directly interpreted Section 120B IPC; post-1 July 2024 Section 61 BNS matters require separate statutory and transitional analysis. No outcome regarding ECIR investigation, quashing, discharge, attachment, arrest, bail, trial or acquittal is guaranteed.

Related Delhi legal guides

Proceeds of crime analysis · Predicate and scheduled offences · Money-laundering defence guide

Document-first assessment

Start with the latest legal instrument and next deadline

Organise the current summons or order, case identifiers, a dated chronology and the transaction or property record before seeking case-specific advice.

Prepare for consultation