Madras HC quashed ED’s PMLA case against RR Granites: complaint didn’t show any “proceeds of crime” linked to alleged illegal mining (2001-12). The land cited was bought in 2000; ED failed to prove the

[10/03, 07:09] sekarreporter1: Sign in
SIGN IN
Welcome!Log into your account
your username
your password
Forgot your password?
PASSWORD RECOVERY
Recover your password
your email

LoginSubscribe
Search
HomeCompany & PMLAMoney Laundering Can Arise From Handling Proceeds of Crime Even if Predicate…
MONEY LAUNDERING CAN ARISE FROM HANDLING PROCEEDS OF CRIME EVEN IF PREDICATE OFFENCE OCCURRED EARLIER: MADRAS HC
COMPANY & PMLATOP STORIES
PUBLISHED ON

07/03/2026
BY
MARIYA PALIWALA

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram
The Madras High Court has held that money laundering can arise from handling proceeds of crime even if predicate offence occurred earlier.

The Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan has quashed money-laundering proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) holding that the prosecution complaint failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). 

BUY NOW : E-MAGAZINE ON 50+ PMLA JUDGEMENTS : Every headnote hyperlinked with Judgement Copy

The bench ruled that merely alleging illegal mining without identifying the “proceeds of crime” attributable to the accused is insufficient to sustain a prosecution under the PMLA. 

RR Granites, a partnership firm engaged in granite quarrying in Madurai district, had purchased quarry land in January 2000 from Bannari Amman Sugars Limited and subsequently obtained government consent for transfer of the mining lease in 2001. The firm later renewed the lease in 2004 and continued mining operations until 2008. 

The controversy arose after allegations of large-scale illegal granite quarrying in the region surfaced. Based on complaints and official inspections, several FIRs were registered in Madurai between 2012 and 2015 against multiple firms and individuals, including RR Granites, alleging illegal mining activities and causing significant loss to the government exchequer. 

The ED subsequently registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and alleged that the accused entities had illegally mined granite between 2001 and 2012, earning substantial profits and converting the proceeds into assets and properties. Acting on these allegations, the agency provisionally attached certain properties of the firm in October 2017 and later filed a prosecution complaint under the PMLA before the Special Court in Madurai. 

RR Granites argued that the PMLA complaint was fundamentally defective and did not disclose any offence under the Act. The firm contended that the property cited by the ED as “proceeds of crime” had been purchased in 2000, prior to the alleged illegal mining period of 2001–2012. The complaint failed to identify any specific proceeds of crime derived by the petitioner from illegal quarrying. Merely alleging illegal mining does not constitute an offence under the PMLA unless the complaint demonstrates how the accused possessed, concealed, or used the proceeds of such crime. The prosecution had relied largely on inspection reports without linking them to specific financial gains or assets attributable to the firm. 

The petitioner therefore argued that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

Discover more
JurisHour
JURISHOUR
Juris Hour
Tax law textbooks
CCI Case Studies
The ED opposed the petition and argued that the quarry land and related properties were involved in money-laundering as they were used in illegal mining activities. According to the agency the illegal quarrying operations allegedly resulted in significant financial gains for the accused. The proceeds from these activities were used to acquire or maintain properties and business interests. Under the PMLA, any property derived from or connected to criminal activity related to a scheduled offence can be treated as proceeds of crime. 

The agency further argued that money laundering is a continuing offence, and therefore the earlier acquisition of property would not automatically exclude it from investigation under the Act.

After examining t
[10/03, 07:09] Meta AI: Madras HC quashed ED’s PMLA case against RR Granites: complaint didn’t show any “proceeds of crime” linked to alleged illegal mining (2001-12). The land cited was bought in 2000; ED failed to prove the firm possessed or used illicit gains. Court said merely alleging mining isn’t enough—specific proceeds must be identified. Proceedings scrapped as abuse of process.