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 immovable properties acquired prior to the alleged crime period could validly be provisionally attached as "proceeds of crime" on the basis of equivalent value when the tainted funds were not traceable in the hands of the accused.
Analysis: The definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was read as encompassing not only property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, but also the value of such property. The Tribunal held that where the actual tainted assets have been diverted, layered, dissipated, or are otherwise not available, attachment may extend to other property of equivalent value, even if such property was acquired before the commission of the scheduled offence, provided the statutory requirements for attachment under Section 5(1) are met. On the facts, the collected funds had been diverted and were not available, and the impugned properties were treated as equivalent-value assets liable to attachment.
Conclusion: The challenge to provisional attachment on the ground that the properties were purchased prior to the crime period failed; the attachment of equivalent-value properties was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, if the proceeds of crime are not traceable, property of equivalent value may be attached even when such property was acquired prior to the alleged offence, subject to the statutory conditions for provisional attachment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
