Chronology Trap in PMLA: “The Money Entered My Account Before the Alleged Scheduled Offence — Can ED Still Call It Proceeds of Crime?”

If money or property genuinely existed before the criminal activity alleged to constitute the scheduled offence, that chronology creates a fundamental Section 2(1)(u) causation problem: property cannot ordinarily be said to have been derived or obtained “as a result of” criminal activity that had not yet occurred. Pavana Dibbur directly supports this distinction. But three qualifications matter: the actual predicate conduct may have begun before the FIR or ECIR; later proceeds may become mixed with an older balance and require transaction-level tracing; and after the Supreme Court's 2026 Nav N

.aks-pmla-chronology{ max-width:1120px;margin:0 auto;padding:clamp(15px,3vw,28px); font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:1.76;color:#182126;background:#fff;box-sizing:border-box; } .aks-pmla-chronology *{box-sizing:border-box} .aks-pmla-chronology h1,.aks-pmla-chronology h2,.aks-pmla-chronology h3{ line-height:1.25;color:#5e3037;scroll-margin-t…