Old Predicate Offence, Later Schedule Inclusion, Later Laundering Activity: The Temporal Limits of PMLA: Delhi Procedure and Defence Guide

Article 20(1) | Section 3 PMLA | Schedule Inclusion | Continuing Activity | Temporal Defence

Can an offence committed years ago become the foundation of a PMLA prosecution after that offence is later included in the Schedule? The answer cannot be obtained from one date alone. A proper analysis separates the predicate act, Schedule-inclusion date, generation of alleged proceeds, acquisition of property and every later act of possession, concealment, use, projecting or claiming.

Research and professional guidance by

Current legal review: 18 August 2026

Direct Answer

An old predicate offence does not automatically make every later PMLA prosecution retrospective. Equally, the later addition of that predicate offence to the PMLA Schedule does not automatically authorise punishment for a wholly completed historic laundering act that was not an offence when committed.

The legally decisive enquiry is more precise:

What process or activity connected with the alleged proceeds of crime is charged against this person, and when did that process or activity occur?

Supreme Court jurisprudence recognises that criminal activity generating property may have occurred before the underlying offence was brought into the PMLA Schedule, yet a person who, after Schedule inclusion, indulges in or continues dealing with the resulting proceeds through a legally relevant Section 3 process may potentially attract PMLA liability.

The converse is equally important. Courts should not use the label “continuing offence” as a shortcut. They should identify the alleged post-effective-date possession, concealment, use, acquisition, projection or claiming and the evidence supporting that allegation.

Article 20(1) therefore makes chronology substantive law—not merely a list of dates at the beginning of a pleading.

Article 20(1): Why the Date of the Act Charged Matters

Article 20(1) of the Constitution protects a person against conviction for conduct that did not violate the law in force when the act charged as the offence was committed. It also protects against the imposition of a penalty greater than that which could lawfully have been imposed under the law applicable when the offence was committed.

That constitutional formulation directs attention to the act charged as the offence.

In a PMLA case, that can be materially different from:

• the date on which the predicate fraud, corruption or other scheduled criminal activity occurred;
• the date of the predicate FIR;
• the date of the charge-sheet in that case;
• the date on which ED registered an ECIR;
• the date of an ED summons;
• the date of attachment; or
• the date of filing of the prosecution complaint.

The constitutional analysis therefore begins with identification of the alleged Section 3 conduct itself.

Quick Navigation

1. Why one PMLA timeline is legally dangerous
2. PMLA commencement and Schedule inclusion
3. The eight-date temporal matrix
4. What is the legally relevant Section 3 date?
5. Pavana Dibbur and the acquisition-date test
6. Old acquisition, later possession/use/projection
7. Continuing activity: scope and limits
8. Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma (2025)
9. Nine temporal PMLA scenarios
10. Which version of Section 3 applies?
11. Article 20(1) and Section 4 punishment
12. ECIR/search/attachment dates are different
13. Prosecution complaint temporal audit
14. Evidence and document checklist
15. Practical litigation chronology
16. Frequently asked questions

Why a Single PMLA Timeline Can Produce the Wrong Legal Answer

Consider this simplified example:

A transaction constituting the alleged predicate criminal activity occurs in 2006. The statutory offence relied upon is brought into the PMLA Schedule in 2009. Property allegedly derived from the 2006 activity remains in an account. In 2010 the accused allegedly transfers part of that property, in 2012 purchases another asset, and in 2014 allegedly presents that asset as legitimate.

What is “the offence date”?

There is no responsible answer until the allegation is decomposed.

Event	Date	Legal Question
Predicate criminal act	2006	Was the underlying conduct an offence? Was it then within the PMLA Schedule?
Schedule inclusion	2009	From what date did this precise predicate provision qualify under the relevant Schedule regime?
Continued control	2009 onward	Does evidence establish post-inclusion possession/concealment or another Section 3 activity?
Transfer/use	2010	Is this an independently identifiable post-inclusion process/activity?
Acquisition of new asset	2012	Was the consideration traceable to the alleged proceeds?
Projection/claim	2014	What representation is said to have projected or claimed the property as untainted?
ECIR	Later	Procedural investigation event—not automatically the Section 3 offence date.

Calling all of this “one continuing money-laundering offence since 2006” may conceal the very constitutional and statutory questions the court must decide.

PMLA Commencement Is Only the First Date—Not the Last

The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act became operational on 1 July 2005.

But that does not mean that every criminal offence existing in India automatically became a PMLA scheduled offence on that date.

The Schedule has changed repeatedly. Offences have been added, moved between Parts and subjected to different statutory arrangements over time.

Therefore, in a historic case, counsel should never stop at:

“Was PMLA in force?”

The additional question is:

“Was this precise predicate provision a scheduled offence under the version of the Schedule legally relevant to the case?”

The Historical Schedule Audit

• Identify the exact statute.
• Identify the exact section/sub-section charged.
• Identify its Schedule paragraph.
• Identify when it first entered the Schedule.
• Identify whether it was in Part A, B or C.
• Identify whether a monetary threshold then applied.
• Identify any later amendment moving or expanding it.
• Separate the date of the predicate act from the date of later Section 3 conduct.

There is no universal “Schedule inclusion date.” The historical Schedule must be checked offence by offence. A date applicable to Section X of one statute cannot simply be copied into a case based upon Section Y of another statute.

The Eight-Date PMLA Temporal Matrix

For old-offence cases, prepare a dedicated chronology before analysing guilt.

D0 PMLA commencement

Was the relevant conduct before or after the Act became operational on 1 July 2005?

D1 Predicate criminal activity

When precisely was the alleged fraud, corruption, cheating, criminal breach of trust or other predicate conduct committed?

D2 Schedule inclusion

When did the exact predicate provision become a scheduled offence, under what Part, and subject to what threshold or qualification?

D3 Generation of alleged proceeds

When was the property allegedly derived or obtained from the relevant criminal activity?

D4 Acquisition / first possession

When did the particular accused acquire, receive, possess or control the property?

D5 Later Section 3 activity

After the relevant legal date, is there an alleged act of concealment, possession, use, acquisition, projecting or claiming?

D6 Applicable statutory version

Which version of Section 3, Section 4 and the relevant Schedule provisions governed the conduct relied upon?

D7 ED procedural action

ECIR, summons, search, freezing, attachment, arrest and prosecution complaint dates must be recorded separately from the alleged laundering conduct.

The Core Sequence

PREDICATE ACT
What happened and when? SCHEDULE STATUS
Was the offence scheduled then; if not, when was it included? PROCEEDS ARISE
What property is alleged to have resulted from the criminal activity? PROPERTY ACQUISITION
When did the accused receive/acquire the particular asset? LATER SECTION 3 CONDUCT
What continued or occurred after the legally significant date? APPLICABLE LAW
Which statutory version applied on that date? ED PROCEDURE
When did investigation, attachment or prosecution begin?

The Supreme Court's Critical Question: When Did the Person Deal With the Proceeds?

The central doctrinal development comes from the Supreme Court's treatment of Section 3.

The laundering process is conceptually distinct from the criminal activity which generated the property. Property must first be derived or obtained from the relevant criminal activity before somebody can later indulge in a process or activity connected with it.

That creates temporal separation:

PREDICATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY → PROCEEDS OF CRIME → SECTION 3 PROCESS / ACTIVITY.

Supreme Court authority recognises that the predicate criminal activity may have occurred before it was notified as a scheduled offence, but a later person who deals—or continues to deal—with the resulting proceeds after the offence has entered the Schedule may, depending upon the facts, attract Section 3.

For that reason, the relevant date for the Section 3 enquiry is not mechanically the date of the predicate offence. It is the date on which the person allegedly indulges in the process or activity connected with the proceeds.

Important: This does not mean “PMLA is retrospective because the predicate act was old.” The prosecution theory instead depends upon identifying a laundering process/activity occurring or continuing at a legally relevant later time.

Pavana Dibbur: Why Acquisition Date Can Defeat a False Chronology

Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1029, is particularly useful because the Supreme Court examined actual property-acquisition chronology rather than treating every property associated with an accused as interchangeable.

The first property involved in that case had been purchased by the appellant on 1 July 2013. The relevant alleged scheduled criminal activity relied upon for the proceeds theory occurred years later.

That creates a simple factual impossibility:

A property acquired in 2013 cannot have been acquired using proceeds generated by criminal activity occurring only later.

The Supreme Court ultimately recognised that lack of temporal connection concerning the first property.

The Acquisition-Date Test

For every property alleged to represent proceeds, ask:

1. When was the property acquired?
2. When was consideration paid?
3. From which account?
4. When did the alleged criminal activity occur?
5. When were the alleged proceeds generated?
6. Could those proceeds physically and chronologically have funded this acquisition?
7. Is ED instead advancing a different statutory value-based property theory?

Do not collapse two propositions:

“this property was acquired from the proceeds”
and
“this other property may be proceeded against under a statutory value/equivalent-value theory.”

They require different factual and legal analysis.

Source-of-Funds Evidence

Acquisition-date analysis should ordinarily be supported by:

• registered conveyance;
• agreement to sell;
• bank payment trail;
• loan sanction and disbursement;
• historic ITRs;
• capital account;
• balance sheet;
• sale proceeds from earlier property;
• inheritance records;
• investment redemption records;
• contemporaneous valuation;
• date-wise alleged proceeds chart.

Old Acquisition Does Not Automatically Answer Later Possession, Use or Projection

Suppose disputed property was acquired before the relevant offence entered the PMLA Schedule.

That may create a serious objection to treating the original acquisition as a later PMLA offence.

But the analysis should not stop there if the prosecution alleges different later conduct.

Historic Event	Later Allegation	Proper Temporal Question
Property acquired before Schedule inclusion	Possession after inclusion	Does the evidence establish legally relevant continued possession/enjoyment of property qualifying as proceeds?
Money received before inclusion	Transferred after inclusion	Is the later transfer an identifiable use/concealment activity connected with the proceeds?
Asset acquired earlier	Later false legitimacy representation	What later representation is said to constitute projecting or claiming as untainted?
Account balance existed earlier	Funds spent after inclusion	Can the later expenditure be traced to the alleged proceeds?
Company created earlier	Later layering through company	What post-inclusion transaction and accused-specific conduct are proved?

The prosecution therefore cannot simply move the original acquisition date forward.

Instead, it must identify the separate later limb:

OLD ACQUISITION ≠ LATER POSSESSION ≠ LATER USE ≠ LATER PROJECTION.

Each is a separate factual hypothesis.

The Continuing-Activity Theory: Powerful, But It Still Requires Facts

Current Section 3 expressly states, through its Explanation, that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is continuing while a person directly or indirectly enjoys the proceeds through concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting or claiming.

This is important in temporal cases because laundering may not consist of one isolated transaction.

But the term “continuing” should not become a substitute for evidence.

The Wrong Analysis

“Property was obtained in 2004. It still exists. Therefore money-laundering automatically continued indefinitely.”

The Better Analysis

Identify:

• the alleged proceeds;
• the person exercising control;
• the Section 3 limb;
• the post-effective-date period;
• the act or state of continued enjoyment relied upon;
• the records proving control/use/concealment/projection;
• whether the property had already been transferred or exhausted;
• whether the accused's involvement had actually ceased.

Continuing Activity vs Continuing Consequence

A critical litigation question is whether the prosecution has identified a continuing statutory process/activity or is merely pointing to the continuing consequence of an earlier completed event.

The current statutory formulation expressly includes ongoing enjoyment through possession and other enumerated modes. Thus continuing possession may itself be relevant where its statutory ingredients are made out.

But the court should still identify what exactly continued. The phrase “continuing offence” should not erase the distinction between:

• a historic purchase;
• present possession;
• later expenditure;
• later transfer;
• later concealment;
• later assertion of legitimacy.

Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement — 2025 INSC 349

The Supreme Court's 17 March 2025 decision in Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma is significant because retrospectivity and continuing money-laundering were directly raised in a factually complex historical prosecution.

The allegations involved conduct spanning different time periods and different versions of the PMLA Schedule.

The Supreme Court applied the continuing-activity reasoning associated with Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. On the facts before it, the case was not treated merely as prosecution for an old completed predicate act. The Court referred to alleged continued utilisation, concealment, layering/integration and projection of proceeds beyond the earlier events.

The practical significance is substantial:

A retrospectivity objection cannot be properly adjudicated merely by placing the predicate-offence date beside the PMLA commencement date.

The court must identify whether later laundering conduct is actually alleged and supported.

What Pradeep Does Not Justify

The decision should not be simplified into:

“Every old offence is retrospectively covered by PMLA because money-laundering is continuing.”

That formulation would erase the factual analysis undertaken by the Court.

The correct litigation exercise remains:

OLD CRIMINAL ACT → SCHEDULE STATUS → IDENTIFIED PROCEEDS → LATER LAUNDERING ACT → EVIDENCE.

Nine Temporal PMLA Scenarios

Scenario 1 — Predicate Act Before Schedule Inclusion; Everything Completed Before Inclusion

The alleged predicate crime occurs before its Schedule inclusion. The property is generated, acquired, spent or transferred, and the prosecution identifies no subsequent Section 3 conduct after the legally relevant inclusion date.

This presents the strongest Article 20(1)/non-retroactivity objection to attempting to punish the already completed historic conduct merely because the predicate offence was subsequently added to the Schedule.

Scenario 2 — Old Predicate Act; Continued Possession After Schedule Inclusion

The criminal activity predates Schedule inclusion, but the accused allegedly continues to possess and enjoy identified proceeds after the offence has entered the Schedule.

Current Supreme Court jurisprudence recognises that the later/continuing Section 3 activity can become the legally relevant basis of prosecution, depending upon proof of proceeds, possession and accused-specific involvement.

Scenario 3 — Old Predicate Act; Later Use After Schedule Inclusion

The proceeds arose earlier but were allegedly spent, invested, transferred or otherwise used after Schedule inclusion.

The court should identify the later transaction itself and determine whether it constitutes a post-inclusion Section 3 process/activity.

Scenario 4 — Property Acquired Before the Alleged Criminal Proceeds Existed

The acquisition chronology makes it impossible for the identified later proceeds to have financed the historic acquisition.

Pavana Dibbur demonstrates the importance of this temporal defence. Any separate later possession, use or statutory equivalent-value property theory must be analysed independently.

Scenario 5 — Property Acquired Before Schedule Inclusion; Projected as Legitimate Afterwards

The historic acquisition and later alleged projection are different events.

The prosecution should identify the post-inclusion representation, document, accounting treatment, transaction or other act relied upon as projecting or claiming the property as untainted.

Scenario 6 — Property Acquired After Schedule Inclusion From Identified Proceeds

Here the acquisition itself may be the relevant post-inclusion Section 3 activity, provided the proceeds-of-crime nexus and accused-specific participation are established.

Scenario 7 — Property Sold or Proceeds Fully Exhausted Before Inclusion

A generic assertion of continuing possession becomes factually difficult if the accused no longer possessed or enjoyed the particular property before the relevant legal date.

The prosecution would need to identify a different legally sustainable post-inclusion activity or other statutory property theory rather than merely repeating “continuing offence.”

Scenario 8 — Later Person Enters the Chain Only After Schedule Inclusion

The later person did not commit the predicate offence but knowingly receives, conceals, uses or otherwise deals with resulting proceeds after the relevant inclusion.

Supreme Court jurisprudence recognises that a Section 3 accused need not necessarily have been an accused in the predicate offence. The later actor's own knowledge, conduct and relevant Section 3 activity must still be established.

Scenario 9 — ECIR Registered Years Later

An ECIR in 2026 does not by itself turn 2026 into the date of the laundering offence.

The prosecution and defence must return to the alleged Section 3 process/activity and determine when the conduct actually occurred or continued.

Which Version of Section 3 Was in Force on the Relevant Date?

Temporal analysis must include statutory text, not merely factual dates.

India Code records a material substitution in Section 3 with effect from 15 February 2013. The present Explanation—including the six separately listed processes/activities and the express continuing-activity clarification—was inserted with effect from 1 August 2019.

Supreme Court jurisprudence has treated the 2019 Explanation as clarificatory of the post-2013 Section 3 architecture rather than as creating an entirely new offence from 2019.

Nevertheless, a practitioner dealing with conduct before February 2013 should not simply paste the present statutory text into the historic chronology without first examining the version actually in force at that time and the binding judicial interpretation applicable to it.

The Statutory-Version Table

Period	Audit Requirement
Before 1 July 2005	PMLA itself was not operational. Identify whether any later Section 3 process/activity occurred after commencement and Schedule inclusion.
1 July 2005 to 14 February 2013	Read the historic version of Section 3 and the Schedule applicable to the precise predicate offence.
15 February 2013 to 31 July 2019	Apply the post-2013 Section 3 wording and relevant Supreme Court interpretation.
From 1 August 2019	Current Explanation expressly enumerates six processes/activities and continuing enjoyment.

Article 20(1) Has a Second Temporal Question: Which Punishment Was Legally Available?

Article 20(1) is not limited to asking whether the conduct was criminal.

It also protects against imposition of a greater penalty than the law permitted when the offence was committed.

This matters because Section 4 itself has undergone amendment. India Code records, among other changes, that the earlier statutory fine language containing a monetary cap was altered with effect from 15 February 2013.

Accordingly, where alleged Section 3 activity spans legislative amendments, counsel should separately ask:

• what exact conduct is charged;
• whether the prosecution alleges a single act or continuing activity;
• when that act/activity occurred;
• what Section 4 regime applied;
• whether any later punishment provision is being applied to earlier completed conduct.

The correct penalty analysis in a genuinely continuing offence spanning statutory amendments can be legally complex. It should not be resolved by automatically choosing either the earliest or latest date without examining the charged conduct and controlling authority.

Do Not Confuse the Date of ED Action With the Date of Money-Laundering

An old criminal case may surface before ED years later.

That produces a second common chronological error:

ECIR DATE = MONEY-LAUNDERING DATE.

That is not necessarily correct.

ED Event	What It Represents	What It Does Not Automatically Establish
ECIR	ED investigative/procedural commencement or recording within its system	Date on which Section 3 conduct occurred
Section 50 summons	Investigative demand for attendance/evidence	Date of alleged laundering
Section 17 search	Exercise of search/seizure/freezing power subject to statute	Date the proceeds were originally acquired
Section 5 attachment	Property-restraint proceeding	Automatic proof of criminal guilt
Section 19 arrest	Exercise of statutory arrest power	Date of original Section 3 process/activity
Prosecution complaint	Formal criminal prosecution before Special Court	Date on which every underlying act occurred

These dates matter procedurally, but the Article 20(1) and Section 3 enquiry requires the court to move behind them to the conduct charged.

How to Audit a PMLA Prosecution Complaint for Temporal Defects

In an old-predicate-offence case, prepare a separate temporal allegation sheet for every accused.

Question	Complaint Paragraph	Date Alleged	Evidence	Defence Issue
Predicate criminal act	Para ___	___	FIR/charge-sheet	Was provision scheduled then?
Schedule inclusion	Legal issue	___	Historical statute/Gazette	Correct Part/threshold?
Proceeds generated	Para ___	___	Money/property trail	How derived from scheduled criminal activity?
Property acquired	Para ___	___	Deed/bank trail	Could alleged proceeds exist then?
Possession/concealment	Para ___	___ to ___	Control/title/access evidence	Was there post-inclusion continued enjoyment?
Use	Para ___	___	Transfer/purchase/payment	What funds were used?
Projection/claim	Para ___	___	Representation/document	What precise later assertion is relied upon?
Section 3 statutory version	Legal issue	___	India Code/Gazette	Was this wording in force?

Temporal Red Flags

• The complaint gives one date range for several legally different activities.
• The alleged property was acquired before the alleged proceeds existed.
• The predicate offence became scheduled only later, but no post-inclusion laundering act is identified.
• “Continuing offence” is asserted without specifying what continued.
• Historic acquisition is treated as though it occurred again every day.
• The complaint relies on later possession but gives no evidence of possession/control.
• Later use is alleged but the relevant funds cannot be traced.
• Projection is alleged without identifying the representation and date.
• ECIR or attachment date is substituted for offence date.
• The current version of Section 3 is used without examining the statutory version applicable to old conduct.
• The historical Part-B threshold is ignored where relevant.

Documents Needed to Build a PMLA Temporal Defence

Historical Predicate Record FIR, complaint, charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheet, cognizance order and exact offence sections. Historical Schedule Original PMLA Schedule, amending Acts, commencement notifications and Gazette material relevant to the precise predicate provision. Property Acquisition Sale deed, agreement, payment schedule, share transfer, allotment, inheritance or gift documents. Source of Funds Historic bank statements, ITRs, audited accounts, loan records, previous sale proceeds and capital accounts. Continued Possession Title, bank mandate, demat custody, account access, occupancy or beneficial-control records. Later Use UTRs, purchase records, investments, loan repayments, expenditure and transfer instructions. Projection / Claim Accounts, tax filings, invoices, correspondence, statements or representations relied upon by ED. ED Record Summons, search papers, freezing/seizure documents, PAO, Section 8 record and prosecution complaint. Statutory Versions Section 2, Section 3, Section 4 and the Schedule as applicable on each relevant date.

The Practitioner-Level PMLA Chronology

A useful brief should have at least four parallel columns:

Date	Factual Event	Law in Force	Legal Significance
DD/MM/YYYY	Predicate act	Predicate statute + PMLA Schedule status	Was it scheduled on this date?
DD/MM/YYYY	Proceeds allegedly generated	Section 2(1)(u)	What property came into existence?
DD/MM/YYYY	Property acquired	Applicable Section 3 version	Could the identified proceeds have funded acquisition?
DD/MM/YYYY	Schedule inclusion	Amending Act/Gazette	Temporal dividing line
DD/MM/YYYY	Possession after inclusion	Applicable Section 3 text	Continuing activity alleged?
DD/MM/YYYY	Later transfer/use	Applicable Section 3 text	Independent post-inclusion act?
DD/MM/YYYY	Projection/claim	Applicable Section 3 text	What representation was made?
DD/MM/YYYY	ECIR / ED action	Procedural provision	Do not confuse with substantive offence date

The Question the Court Should Ultimately Be Able to Answer

On Date X, after the legally relevant statutory provision had become applicable, Accused A allegedly did Act Y in relation to Property P, which is alleged to constitute proceeds of Scheduled Offence S, and the prosecution relies upon Evidence E to characterise Act Y as concealment / possession / acquisition / use / projecting / claiming under Section 3.

If the case cannot be expressed with that level of temporal precision, the chronology deserves closer scrutiny.

Article 20(1) Does Not Mean the Predicate Offence and PMLA Offence Must Occur on the Same Date

This distinction is essential.

The scheduled offence is the criminal activity from which the relevant property is allegedly derived or obtained.

Section 3 addresses the subsequent process/activity connected with those proceeds.

They can therefore occur on different dates and can involve different persons.

A person may:

• commit the predicate offence but never personally deal with the resulting proceeds in the manner alleged under Section 3;
• commit the predicate offence and later also launder the proceeds;
• have no role in the predicate offence but later knowingly assist in concealment or use;
• later acquire or possess property allegedly representing those proceeds;
• later project or claim the property as untainted.

The temporal analysis must follow the specific accused, not merely the history of the overall criminal enterprise.

Why “Old Property” Is Not a Complete Legal Defence—and Why Its Date Still Matters

An accused may say:

“I purchased this property fifteen years before the ED case.”

That fact may be highly significant, but the next question is:

Fifteen years before what?

• Before the ECIR?
• Before the predicate FIR?
• Before the criminal activity itself?
• Before generation of the alleged proceeds?
• Before Schedule inclusion?

Only some of those comparisons answer the proceeds-of-crime chronology.

If the property predates the criminal activity which allegedly generated the specific proceeds, that can undermine a direct-source acquisition theory.

If the property was acquired after the criminal activity but before Schedule inclusion, the original acquisition and later post-inclusion possession/use must be separated.

If ED invokes a statutory value/equivalent-value theory, that must be identified and tested independently rather than pretending that old property was historically purchased from money that did not yet exist.

Prosecution Theory vs Constitutional Retrospectivity: A Practical Decision Tree

Question	If YES	If NO
Was PMLA operational when the charged Section 3 conduct occurred?	Proceed to next question.	Serious Article 20(1) issue for criminal liability based solely on that completed conduct.
Was the relevant predicate provision within the Schedule by the legally relevant later date?	Proceed.	Examine whether the PMLA foundation existed.
Are identifiable proceeds connected to scheduled criminal activity alleged?	Proceed.	Section 3 gateway issue.
Is there post-inclusion Section 3 conduct?	Analyse the particular limb and evidence.	Do not invoke continuing activity merely as a label.
Does the accused still possess/enjoy the proceeds?	Continuing-activity theory may require examination.	Identify another later activity, if any.
Does the acquisition predate generation of the alleged proceeds?	Direct acquisition-from-those-proceeds theory faces a chronology problem.	Trace source and transaction normally.
Is the prosecution relying on later use/projection instead?	Identify the exact later act/date.	Historic acquisition cannot simply be relabelled.

AI / Featured-Snippet Quick Answers

Can PMLA apply where the predicate offence occurred before it was included in the Schedule?

Potentially, depending on later conduct. Supreme Court jurisprudence recognises that where a person indulges or continues to indulge in a process/activity connected with proceeds after the underlying offence has become scheduled, the later Section 3 conduct may support prosecution. The predicate date alone is therefore not conclusive.

Can later Schedule inclusion retrospectively criminalise a completely finished old laundering transaction?

Article 20(1) creates a serious constitutional barrier to conviction for an act that was not an offence under the law in force when committed. The prosecution must identify a legally relevant act occurring or continuing when the applicable law was in force rather than relying only on later Schedule inclusion.

What is the relevant date under Section 3 PMLA?

The crucial date is the date on which the particular person allegedly indulges in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. This may differ from the predicate-offence date.

Why does the acquisition date matter?

Because property cannot ordinarily be directly acquired from proceeds that had not yet been generated. Pavana Dibbur demonstrates how acquisition chronology can defeat an incorrect proceeds theory.

Is money-laundering a continuing offence?

Section 3 presently describes the process/activity as continuing while the person enjoys the proceeds through the enumerated modes. But a court should still identify the accused, property, continuing activity, relevant dates and supporting evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions on PMLA Retrospectivity and Old Predicate Offences

When did PMLA come into force?

The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act became operational on 1 July 2005.

Were all present scheduled offences part of the PMLA Schedule from 1 July 2005?

No. The Schedule has undergone amendments. For a historical prosecution, the exact predicate provision, its Part and any threshold applicable at the relevant time must be verified.

Does an old predicate offence automatically escape PMLA?

No. A later Section 3 process/activity after the relevant offence became scheduled may still be legally significant, subject to the statutory ingredients and evidence.

Does later inclusion in the Schedule automatically make an old transaction money-laundering?

No. Later inclusion alone should not replace the requirement to identify a legally relevant Section 3 act occurring or continuing when the applicable law was in force.

What does Article 20(1) protect?

In relevant part, it protects against criminal conviction for conduct that did not violate the law in force when the act charged was committed and against a greater penalty than the law then permitted.

Is the date of the predicate offence always the date of money-laundering?

No. The scheduled criminal activity and the subsequent Section 3 process/activity can occur at different times.

Can a person who had nothing to do with the old predicate crime later be prosecuted under PMLA?

Potentially yes. Supreme Court authority recognises that a later person may become involved in processes such as concealment or use of the resulting proceeds, provided the statutory foundation and accused-specific conduct are established.

Can a property purchased before the criminal activity be the property purchased from those proceeds?

Chronologically, a property cannot ordinarily have been purchased from proceeds generated only later. Pavana Dibbur illustrates the importance of this distinction. Separate statutory value-based property issues must be analysed independently.

If I still own old property, does that automatically mean continuing money-laundering?

No automatic conclusion should be made without identifying the property as proceeds of crime and determining what current Section 3 process/activity and accused-specific enjoyment are alleged and proved. Continued possession may be legally relevant, but it requires a properly established factual and statutory basis.

Can ED rely on later use even if original acquisition occurred earlier?

Potentially yes. Acquisition and later use are distinct factual routes. The later transaction and its connection with proceeds must be independently identified.

Can a later tax return or accounting entry become relevant?

Potentially, if the prosecution relies on it as evidence of later projection or claiming of property as untainted. The document, author, date, truthfulness and accused's role must all be examined.

Does the ECIR date determine whether PMLA is retrospective?

No. The substantive enquiry concerns when the alleged Section 3 process/activity occurred or continued. An ECIR is a later investigative event.

Why must the historical version of Section 3 be checked?

Because Section 3 has been amended. Current wording should not simply be projected backward onto every historical period without examining the statute and judicial interpretation applicable to the charged conduct.

Was the 2019 continuing-activity Explanation treated as creating a new offence only from 2019?

Supreme Court jurisprudence has treated that Explanation as clarificatory in relation to the Section 3 architecture rather than as enlarging it for the first time in 2019.

What is the most important document in an old PMLA case?

There is rarely one document. The strongest starting tool is a verified chronology combining the historical Schedule, predicate papers, proceeds-generation evidence, acquisition documents, bank trail, later transactions and the statutory text in force on each relevant date.

What should a court identify before rejecting an Article 20(1) objection on the basis of continuing money-laundering?

The court should identify the proceeds, accused, specific Section 3 process/activity, the relevant post-effective-date period and the evidence showing that such activity occurred or continued.

Official Legal Research Sources

• India Code — Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
• Legislative Department — Constitution of India
• Supreme Court of India

General Legal Guide vs Case-Specific Advice

Temporal PMLA analysis is intensely fact- and amendment-specific. An actual opinion requires the predicate FIR/complaint, charge-sheet, exact statutory provisions, historical PMLA Schedule, amendment dates, alleged proceeds, property acquisition documents, subsequent transaction trail and the current binding authorities.

A generic statement that “PMLA is retrospective” or that “PMLA can never apply to an old predicate offence” is therefore unsafe. The correct answer depends upon identifying the precise Section 3 act and the law in force on the legally relevant date.

Legal Disclaimer: This is a general legal research and awareness article and not case-specific legal advice. Whether PMLA applies to historical criminal activity depends upon the precise predicate provision, its historical Schedule status, applicable monetary threshold where relevant, generation of alleged proceeds, date and source of property acquisition, accused-specific Section 3 conduct, continuing-activity evidence, procedural stage and the binding law applicable at the time of decision. No outcome regarding prosecution, quashing, discharge, arrest, bail, attachment, confiscation 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