Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
AT upheld provisional attachment and dismissed the appeal, finding that appellant A's transfers to close relatives and cash investments could not be explained as legitimate savings and were largely derived from proceeds of crime connected to misappropriation of government funds. The Tribunal accepted respondents' computation that investments in healthcare infrastructure and capital subscriptions to M/s Pulse Sanjeevani Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. were financed predominantly by illicit funds, with bank loans insufficient to account for the outlays. Appellant P's unexplained cash deposits (≈Rs.73.81 lakhs), high-premium insurance payments and routing of cash through relatives (including B and C) evidenced money-laundering; seizure of cash corroborated involvement. No error found in the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.