Provisional attachment under money laundering law was sustained where the Tribunal held that the attachment was confined to the accused co-owner's share and did not extend to the non-accused spouse's interest. It further held that property of equivalent value could be attached when the alleged proceeds of crime had been dissipated or were no longer available, and that prior purchase or disclosed source of funds did not defeat such attachment on the facts. The confirmation of the provisional attachment order was therefore upheld and the appeals were dismissed.
Provisional attachment under money laundering law was sustained where the Tribunal held that the attachment was confined to the accused co-owner's share and did not extend to the non-accused spouse's interest. It further held that property of equivalent value could be attached when the alleged proceeds of crime had been dissipated or were no longer available, and that prior purchase or disclosed source of funds did not defeat such attachment on the facts. The confirmation of the provisional attachment order was therefore upheld and the appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
