‘Confiscation’ for offence of money laundering cannot be considered as punishment

What is necessary to constitute the offence of money laundering is the existence of proceeds of crime and not the pendency of predicate offence. Therefore, the prosecution of the offender for his involvement in the process or activity connected with the proceeds obtained through the commission of a predicate offence cannot be said to be a prosecution based on ex post facto legislation. The allegations made against the petitioners prima facie indicate that the properties and assets found in their possession were acquired by the commission of the predicate offence.

The "confiscation" provided under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is not a 'punishment'. Confiscation is a condemnation of the property to the public treasury. The power of confiscation conferred under the Act to confiscate the properties which were admittedly acquired before the Amendment Act of 2009 came into force, does not suffer from the vice of the prohibition contained in Article 20(1) of the Constitution. A speedy mechanism has been provided under PML Act for recovery and confiscation of property laundered by offenders. No subject has an inviolable right to enjoy wealth acquired by him by illegitimate means, a legitimate source of which cannot be explained by him. That being object and purpose sought to be effectuated by Money Laundering Act and a piece of well-oiled machinery having been provided with all safeguards to protect right and interest of offender as well as those who are not parties to predicate offence.