As per case facts, the Petitioner, RR Granites, was engaged in quarrying, purchasing property in 2000 and renewing mining leases in 2001/2004. Allegations of illegal quarrying from 2001-2012 led to ... a complaint by the Respondent (Directorate of Enforcement) under PMLA, attaching the property as "proceeds of crime." Petitioner challenged this, citing property acquisition prior to the alleged offense period and the firm's lack of legal existence. A Division Bench initially quashed the proceedings, but the Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration. The question arose whether property acquired before the alleged predicate offense period, but used to generate or launder crime proceeds through renewed mining leases during the illegality period, falls under "proceeds of crime" as per PMLA. Finally, the High Court, relying on Supreme Court guidance, concluded that PMLA targets the laundering aspect, and even if property was acquired earlier, its subsequent use to generate and launder crime proceeds through mining leases during the offense period constitutes a cognizable offense, warranting trial.