The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order u/s 5(1) of PMLA, 2002. It held that non-completion of adjudication proceedings within 180 days would not lapse the attachment due to the Apex Court's judgment in Prakash Corporates. The scheduled offence of misappropriation of government funds by granting exorbitant compensation to farmers was made out. The direct nexus between scheduled offence and attached properties vis-`a-vis their value was covered by the Apex Court's judgment in Vijay Madan Lal. The appellant failed to prove the source for acquiring properties worth crores, satisfying the ingredients of money laundering u/s 3. The procedure of recording reasons to believe u/s 5 was followed. The AT considered all issues raised by the appellant regarding non-consideration of merits by the Adjudicating Authority.
The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order u/s 5(1) of PMLA, 2002. It held that non-completion of adjudication proceedings within 180 days would not lapse the attachment due to the Apex Court's judgment in Prakash Corporates. The scheduled offence of misappropriation of government funds by granting exorbitant compensation to farmers was made out. The direct nexus between scheduled offence and attached properties vis-`a-vis their value was covered by the Apex Court's judgment in Vijay Madan Lal. The appellant failed to prove the source for acquiring properties worth crores, satisfying the ingredients of money laundering u/s 3. The procedure of recording reasons to believe u/s 5 was followed. The AT considered all issues raised by the appellant regarding non-consideration of merits by the Adjudicating Authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
