Property standing in the name of a non-accused person can be attached under money-laundering law if material shows involvement with proceeds of crime, and the burden then shifts to the holder to rebut that link. The Tribunal found substantial transfers from an identified account into the appellant's accounts, rejected the claim that they were unsupported loans, and held that the appellant failed to prove the funds were untainted. It also held that property lawfully acquired earlier is not protected where tainted funds are later infused into it, because proceeds of crime include indirectly derived property. The provisional attachment was sustained because the authority had a rational basis to form reason to believe from investigation material.
Property standing in the name of a non-accused person can be attached under money-laundering law if material shows involvement with proceeds of crime, and the burden then shifts to the holder to rebut that link. The Tribunal found substantial transfers from an identified account into the appellant's accounts, rejected the claim that they were unsupported loans, and held that the appellant failed to prove the funds were untainted. It also held that property lawfully acquired earlier is not protected where tainted funds are later infused into it, because proceeds of crime include indirectly derived property. The provisional attachment was sustained because the authority had a rational basis to form reason to believe from investigation material.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
