#Scheduled Offence

The Bombay High Court quashed a ₹25 crore SAFEMA attachment, holding that the Enforcement Directorate failed to establish any nexus between the appellants' legitimate pre-existing business transactions and the alleged YES Bank-DHFL proceeds of crime. The ruling clarifies that lawful business dealings routed through banking channels cannot be presumed as proceeds of crime under PMLA without a direct link to the scheduled offence, protecting genuine commercial transactions from overbroad attachment.

The Karnataka High Court quashed charges under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act after finding no evidence of a scheduled offence, emphasizing that caste-based allegations alone cannot sustain prosecution without proof of an enumerated atrocity. However, dowry and cruelty charges under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act remain intact, reinforcing that overlapping allegations must be evaluated independently under their respective legal standards.

Allahabad HC rules that Special Courts under the NIA Act, 2008 cannot assume jurisdiction over scheduled offences unless the Central Government explicitly directs investigation under Section 6. The ruling clarifies that mere inclusion of an offence in the Schedule is insufficient, requiring State agencies to proceed in regular courts unless federal intervention is invoked.

The Madras High Court has mandated that when a Special Court is designated under both the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, money laundering cases must be tried alongside the predicate offence to ensure judicial efficiency and avoid evidentiary fragmentation. This ruling reinforces the procedural requirement under Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA, impacting parallel prosecutions involving scheduled offences and money laundering charges.

Bombay High Court quashes PMLA proceedings against accused where property acquisition predates scheduled offence, clarifying that proceeds of crime must originate before laundering activity.