The AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the PMLA against the appellant company and its properties, treating it as a shell entity used for diversion of bank funds constituting proceeds of crime. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the attached property was immune from attachment because it had been acquired prior to the alleged bank fraud, holding that "value of such property" is attachable to prevent frustration of the statute's object. The AT emphasized that under Section 8(1) the burden lies on the noticee to establish legitimate sources for acquisition of the attached assets, which the appellant failed to discharge. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the attachment confirmed.
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the PMLA against the appellant company and its properties, treating it as a shell entity used for diversion of bank funds constituting proceeds of crime. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the attached property was immune from attachment because it had been acquired prior to the alleged bank fraud, holding that "value of such property" is attachable to prevent frustration of the statute's object. The AT emphasized that under Section 8(1) the burden lies on the noticee to establish legitimate sources for acquisition of the attached assets, which the appellant failed to discharge. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the attachment confirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
