Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Attachment under the Act is not limited to property directly derived from the scheduled offence and may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are not traceable or available. The Tribunal held that, on the facts, unauthorized deposits were collected and diverted, and the tainted funds had been layered and siphoned off, justifying attachment of immovable properties standing in the appellants' names. It rejected the contention that property acquired before the offence is always immune, since that reading would make the statutory concept of value-equivalent attachment redundant. The challenge to the provisional attachment therefore failed and confirmation of attachment was sustained.
Attachment under the Act is not limited to property directly derived from the scheduled offence and may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are not traceable or available. The Tribunal held that, on the facts, unauthorized deposits were collected and diverted, and the tainted funds had been layered and siphoned off, justifying attachment of immovable properties standing in the appellants' names. It rejected the contention that property acquired before the offence is always immune, since that reading would make the statutory concept of value-equivalent attachment redundant. The challenge to the provisional attachment therefore failed and confirmation of attachment was sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.