The Madras High Court held it significant that merThe question of the case centered on an accused who had money sourced from some alleged illegal undertakings. In this case, the accused attempted to refute the claim that they were engaged in projecting the proceeds as clean, which would always characterize money laundering. Their defense rested upon the argument that they only possessed the money but had not covered the illegal source of its origin, which should not therefore be termed money laundering. Further, the Madras High Court dismissed such an argument and went into a good length of explanation of Section 3 PMLA that defines money laundering. The Court pointed out that the language of the statute is sufficiently broad enough to include not only the act of "laundering" of money but also mere possession of proceeds of crime. According to the Court, in fact possession itself is the punishable offence regardless of whether the person tried to legitimize such tainted assets. The court clarified that section 3 of PMLA criminalises not only the act of projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property but also possession, use, concealing, or acquiring such proceeds. It is a clear judgment that the possession of proceeds of crime raises an irrebuttable presumption of guilt under the PMLA, and the burden shifts on the accused to prove the legitimacy of his possession. This building broadens the scope of the PMLA-it does not require an individual to have been attempting to clean dirty money for the crime of money laundering to apply. By holding that possession alone is sufficient, the Court clarified that any individual who happens to be in possession of the proceeds of crime, even if they are not attempting directly to conceal its tainted source, are vulnerable to being convicted of money laundering. The Court held that the PMLA is an all-comprehensive legislation to deal with the menace of money laundering in its various manifestations. The intent behind the law appears to be to ensure that anyone associated, directly or indirectly, with criminal activity can be dealt with and brought within its orbit as it lends itself to providing for illegal financial transactions. Thus, maintaining proceeds of crime per se would be considered a constitutive part of money laundering because it enables and supports more illegal activities.e possession of proceeds of crime is enough to invoke provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Clarifying that under Section 3 of PMLA, both possessing the proceeds of crime and projecting or claiming it to be untainted property could independently qualify as money laundering activities, it delivered the verdict.