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 properties purchased during the crime period, though argued to have been acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence, could validly be treated as proceeds of crime and remain subject to provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Analysis: The attachment challenge rested only on the contention that the subject properties were acquired before the commission of the offence and therefore could not fall within the expression "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The acquisition dates, however, showed that the properties were purchased during the crime period and around the time of the appellant's involvement in the scheduled offence. The appellant failed to establish a legitimate source for the purchases. The definition of "proceeds of crime" was applied broadly, consistent with the later judicial understanding that property of equivalent value may also be proceeded against where direct proceeds are not traceable. On the facts, the attachment was sustained.
Conclusion: The objection to provisional attachment was rejected, and the subject properties were held to be liable to attachment as proceeds of crime.
Ratio Decidendi: Property acquired during the crime period, without a proved lawful source and in the context of a scheduled offence, may be treated as proceeds of crime for the purpose of provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
