Update: 17 March 2025

The Supreme Court of India today (March 17) denied Pradeep Sharma, a former Gujarat IAS official, his discharge in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), noting that money laundering is a continuous offense rather than a one-time incident. He was charged with using bribes to generate proceeds of crime while serving as Collector. He requested discharge, claiming that the alleged illegal activity that produced the proceeds of crime took place prior to the PMLA’s implementation. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the plea, claiming that money laundering constituted a persistent criminal offense.

The Supreme Court dismissed the claim that since the alleged predicate offense took place prior to the PMLA’s passage, no money laundering offense could be proven. Rather, citing the ruling in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary vs. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1, the Court ruled that money laundering is a crime that persists as long as criminal gains are hidden, put to use, or manifested as pure property.

It is commonly known that crimes under the PMLA are ongoing, and money laundering doesn’t cease with a single incident; rather, it continues as long as criminal proceeds are hidden, put to use, or presented as pure property. According to the bench made up of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, “the legislative intent behind the PMLA is to combat the menace of money laundering, which by its very nature involves transactions spanning over time.”

As long as unlawful gains are held, presented as legitimate, or reintroduced into the economy, the law acknowledges that money laundering is a continuous activity rather than a one-time occurrence. Therefore, neither the law nor the facts support the claim that the offense is not ongoing, and as a result, the High Court‘s decision cannot be overturned on this basis. The appellant’s argument is untenable, even when considered within the framework of the current case. The evidence in the file shows that the appellant has consistently and repeatedly abused his position of authority, which has led to the creation and long-term use of criminal proceeds.

The appellant continued to be involved in financial transactions connected to the proceeds of crime after the original point of commission, as the respondent (ED) has successfully shown prima facie. A continuous offense under the PMLA includes the use of such proceeds, the purported layering and integration, and the attempts to portray such money as unadulterated. The Court further stated that the actions taken against the appellant are completely within the bounds of the law and cannot be challenged on this basis. The Court underlined that the PMLA was passed in order to fight money laundering, which by definition entails long-term transactions. As a result, even if the predicate offenses took place earlier, the PMLA may still be applied to acts that persisted after it was passed.