Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The AT upheld the attachment of properties under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) of PMLA, finding sufficient reason to believe that the assets were proceeds of crime involved in money laundering, despite appellants not being accused in any predicate offence or the proceeds not being specifically quantified. The Tribunal rejected the contention that properties acquired prior to PMLA's commencement are immune from attachment, applying the equivalent value doctrine where proceeds were siphoned off. It further held that a single-member bench of the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority was competent under Section 6(5) and not coram non-judice, as the statute does not mandate a two-member bench in all cases. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the validity of provisional attachment orders and procedural compliance by the Enforcement Directorate.
The AT upheld the attachment of properties under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) of PMLA, finding sufficient reason to believe that the assets were proceeds of crime involved in money laundering, despite appellants not being accused in any predicate offence or the proceeds not being specifically quantified. The Tribunal rejected the contention that properties acquired prior to PMLA's commencement are immune from attachment, applying the equivalent value doctrine where proceeds were siphoned off. It further held that a single-member bench of the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority was competent under Section 6(5) and not coram non-judice, as the statute does not mandate a two-member bench in all cases. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the validity of provisional attachment orders and procedural compliance by the Enforcement Directorate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
