Profits from cricket betting proceeds of crime if earned from tainted property: HC

THe new delhi heights margaret court has ruled that profits from cricket betting testament be treated as “proceeds of criminal offence” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), if they are earned by using any property that was acquired illegally.A bench of justices Anil clarified that even though conducting betting is not a scheduled offence under the PMLA, the profits generated from it would still constitute proceeds of crime if the money can be traced back to tainted property.To be sure, scheduled offence refers to specific criminal offences listed in the Act’s Schedule, and the proceeds derived from only these listed offences trigger prosecution for money laundering under the PMLA.“Even if a downstream activity, such as conducting betting, is not a scheduled offence, profits generated from such activity remain traceable to the original tainted property, especially when the said downstream activity is a final manifestation of a chain of criminality, intricately interwoven with multiple preceding criminal acts, any profit derived therefrom clearly constituting “proceeds of crime” within the contours of the PMLA,” the court maintained.Also Read: Cops bust cyber fraud racket which duped several people of ₹84 croreThe court added, “With respect to the application of Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA, it is pertinent to note that the scope of this provision is wide, encompassing not only immediate profits from a criminal act but also any advantage derived from the utilisation, transfer or subsequent exploitation of property obtained from a scheduled offence.”The court delivered the ruling while hearing petitions filed by various individuals challenging provisional attachment orders (POA) issued by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case linked to large-scale hawala transactions and illegal international cricket betting operations.In this case, the POA was issued after the ED raided the residence of one of the individuals accused of acting as a conduit in an international cricket betting network, in May 2015. He allegedly bought master and client login IDs for a betting platform at ₹2.4 crore each and made payments abroad through unauthorised channels. The ED found that these IDs were issued without completing the mandatory KYC process. During the raid, the agency recovered incriminating documents, valuables, and ₹10 lakh in cash.The ED later issued another order attaching movable and immovable assets worth around ₹20 crore, treating them as proceeds of crime linked to the illegal betting operations. This action followed information that a company involved in the betting scheme had settled ₹60 crore with the accused.In his plea before the High Court, the individuals had argued that the attached properties could not be treated as proceeds of crime because cricket betting is not a scheduled offence under the PMLA, and therefore the assets were not linked to any scheduled criminal activity.However, the court in its 36-page verdict dismissed the petitions noting that the individuals act of procuring and distributing the ID’s without any KYC verification or lawful documentation amounts to forgery, cheating, identity fraud and criminal conspiracy, all of which constituted a scheduled offence and thus any benefit indirectly derived by the usage of the Super Master Login ID’s, would constitute proceeds of crime.The bench further clarified that if someone obtains immovable property through offences like forgery, cheating or criminal conspiracy, and later uses that property for another activity such as running an unlicensed real estate business that is not a scheduled offence the income earned from that later activity would still be treated as “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA.“For instance, if a person acquires any immovable property through acts of forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy and thereafter utilises such property for a downstream activity, such as conducting an unlicensed real-estate business which is not a scheduled offence, the proceeds generated from the latter activity nonetheless constitute “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA. This is because the taint attached to the property at its very inception, originated from a criminal activity relatable to a scheduled offence, persists throughout its subsequent use. Pithily put, “Fruit of a poisoned tree”,” the court maintained.