TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of the appellant's bank account was sustainable when the funds deposited by the user had been converted into virtual digital assets and transferred out of the platform, and whether the appellant was in possession of proceeds of crime.
Analysis: The Tribunal found that the appellant was not named as an in the predicate offence and functioned only as a crypto-exchange platform facilitating purchase and sale of virtual digital assets. The deposited amounts were traced to a user, converted into VDAs, and thereafter transferred outside the platform. On the record, the respondents could not justify attaching the appellant's bank account for an amount beyond the deposits attributed to that user or show that the proceeds of crime remained with the appellant. The appellant's role as a transaction facilitator without post-purchase control over the VDAs was also accepted.
Conclusion: The attachment of the appellant's bank account was unjustified and the provisional attachment order, along with its confirmation, was set aside in favour of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Provisional attachment cannot be sustained against a platform intermediary when the alleged proceeds of crime have been converted and transferred out, and the intermediary is not shown to be in possession or control of those proceeds.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
