In such situation, it is all the more harassment where a person who has been alleged to have committed Predicate Offence does not even gets charge-sheeted or don't get accused of commission of Predicate Offence or that person though is accused of commission of Predicate Offence, gets discharged from the commission of Predicate Offence yet, people against whom only allegation is of aiding in the process of laundering, assumed by enforcement authorities, keep suffering the wrath of ED despite the fact that there are no Proceeds of Crime in existence. during the stage of laundering of Proceeds of Crime. The offence under PMLA is of such a wide amplitude, that it includes in its ambit not only those who have committed Predicate Offence but also people who have joined him later i.e. The first proviso, I feel, is one which has become root cause of harassment and loss property to people who are not even connected with commission of Predicate Offence. Besides depriving people from their liberty, the authorities also end up attaching whatever property they can lay their hands on, of suspects, without there being any reason for same.
All this is despite the fact that no prima facie satisfaction of commission of Predicate Offence has happened yet.
In practice, trend has been, the moment some complaint or a report is filed for the commission of Predicate Offence by dedicated investigating authorities, in the competent court, ED starts tailing those agencies and initiates prosecution under PMLA, start harassing or worst, detaining people, on the mere assumption that since one has been named under report of commission of predicate offence therefore they have also committed the offence under PMLA. True, expression "prima facie case of commission of Predicate Offence" doesn't find mention in first proviso to section 5 but given the scheme of PMLA, I feel, one won't be wrong in interpreting the proviso in said manner. It simply means that investigating agency has found some material based on which they formed an opinion of prosecuting one for the commission of Predicate Offence. In my opinion, filing of a complaint/report/charge sheet in competent court for commission of Predicate Offence, doesn't ipso facto makes prima facie case of commission of said Predicate Offence. First proviso to the section does stipulate that there must be a suspicion regarding commission of Predicate Offence regarding which charge sheet/report/complaint has been filed and it is only after that the authorities under PMLA can act under section 5.
Here, the logic behind offence of money laundering is somewhat taken care of.
Provided that no such order of attachment shall be made unless, in relation to the scheduled offence, a report has been forwarded to a magistrate under section 173 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint has been filed by a person authorised to investigate the offence mentioned in that schedule, before a magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be, or a similar report or complaint has been made or filed under the corresponding law of any other country: He may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the order, in such manner as may be prescribed: