The 'scheduled offence' requirement is both the foundation and the limit of PMLA. Examine this in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.

Under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), money laundering (Section 3) is a derivative offence. "Proceeds of crime" exist only where property comes from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence [1]. This one condition gives the Enforcement Directorate (ED) its reach and also sets its boundary, as recent Supreme Court rulings show.

Scheduled offence as the foundation

• Jurisdictional trigger: ED's case begins only when a predicate offence listed in the Act's Schedule is alleged [1].
• Wide personal reach: In Yash Tuteja v. Union of India (2024), the Court reaffirmed Pavana Dibbur: the person charged under Section 3 need not be an accused in the scheduled offence [3]. This lets ED pursue intermediaries and fund handlers.
• Continuing offence: Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad (2025) held that laundering can be a continuing offence. It also held that the Section 45 twin bail conditions apply even when the predicate offence is non-cognizable [4].
• New domains: ED's PMLA case over funds linked to the failed Argentina–Messi friendly in Kochi shows how a misappropriation predicate can bring even sports-event finance under PMLA [5].

Scheduled offence as the limit

• No predicate, no PMLA: Yash Tuteja quashed ED's complaint because the alleged offences were not scheduled. "The condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence" [3].
• No stretching through conspiracy: Section 120B IPC counts as a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy is to commit a scheduled offence [3]. ED cannot build its own jurisdiction this way.
• Shared fate: If the predicate case ends in acquittal, discharge or quashing, the PMLA accused also gets the benefit [3].
• Statutory filters: Part B offences attract PMLA only when the value involved is ₹1 crore or more [1]. Provisional attachment lapses after 180 days unless the Adjudicating Authority confirms it [2].

Assessment

• The predicate link protects Article 21 liberty against open-ended investigation. It also respects federal policing, because State police usually investigate the predicate offences.
• However, strict bail conditions combined with a continuing-offence reading still give ED strong leverage before trial. So the gateway is narrow, but what lies beyond it remains formidable.

The scheduled offence therefore works as both gateway and guardrail: it lets ED follow the money but ties every case to a real underlying crime. Going forward, ED and State police need a shared record of the predicate case, and PMLA cases need time-bound trials. The Standing Committee on the 2011 Amendment Bill examined fast-tracking of cases and ED manpower [6]. These steps would keep India's anti-laundering regime effective and consistent with constitutional due process.