However, the position is different where the predicate offence is quashed merely on the basis of a compromise. “Where the predicate offence gets quashed on the basis of a compromise/agreement there is no finding rendered on the existence of the proceeds of crime. The proceedings get scuttled before a judicial mind could get applied on the existence of the predicate offence. It further cautioned that accepting the contrary position would allow accused persons to defeat money laundering proceedings by settling the original criminal case with the complainant. It further held that the quashing of the predicate offence could, at best, operate qua the individual complainant.