What are the consequences of an accused's discharge or acquittal in a scheduled offence on money laundering proceedings? What is the validity of a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) when the accused in the PMLA case has been discharged? How does the discharge of an accused in a predicate offence affect money laundering proceedings under the PMLA?

Key Points: - The discharge or acquittal of an accused in a scheduled offence has consequences on money laundering proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) [judgement_subject]. - The petitions challenged a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under Section 5 of the PMLA, seeking the release of attached properties after the accused, Mr. Sachin Joshi, was discharged in the PMLA case [judgement_subject]. - The court found that Mr. Sachin Joshi and his companies were discharged in the PMLA case, and there was no evidence of criminality leading to the generation of proceeds of crime by Mr. Sachin Joshi [judgement_subject]. - The impugned PAO was based on the connection with Mr. Sachin Joshi, and in light of his discharge, the PAO was liable to be quashed/set aside [judgement_subject]. - The court held that the discharge of the accused in the predicate offence had consequences on the money laundering proceedings, and in the absence of a scheduled offence, there could be no offence of money laundering [judgement_subject]. - The authorities under the PMLA cannot prosecute any person on the assumption of a scheduled offence unless it is registered or pending inquiry/trial [judgement_subject]. - The court quashed/set aside the impugned PAO concerning Mr. Sachin Joshi and M/s. Muktanand Agro Farming Pvt. Ltd. and ordered the release of the attached properties [judgement_subject]. - The basis of the PAO was an FIR invoking Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [11000754610001]. - The Special Court found no evidence to show any criminality resulting in the generation of proceeds of crime by Mr. Sachin Joshi [11000754610005]. - The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. UOI & Ors. held that if a person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence, there can be no offence of money-laundering against them (!) (!) . - The court granted liberty to the ED to seek revival of the PAO if there is any change in circumstances [11000754610017].

What are the consequences of an accused's discharge or acquittal in a scheduled offence on money laundering proceedings?

What is the validity of a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) when the accused in the PMLA case has been discharged?

How does the discharge of an accused in a predicate offence affect money laundering proceedings under the PMLA?