https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151994 The forfeiture statute extends to an associate of a detenu and to relatives holding property traceable to unlawful earnings; once the statutory burden is not rebutted, such property is liable to forfeiture. The record stated that Harshad P. Mehta's role in hawala operations and illegal remittances brought his assets within the definition of illegally acquired property, and his relatives' properties were also traceable to those unlawful earnings. For the amount held by Ashish Patel, the absence of disclosure of sale proceeds and their whereabouts meant the statutory presumption was not displaced, so forfeiture was sustained. en-us Thu, 03 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:13:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151994 The forfeiture statute extends to an associate of a detenu and to relatives holding property traceable to unlawful earnings; once the statutory burden is not rebutted, such property is liable to forfeiture. The record stated that Harshad P. Mehta's role in hawala operations and illegal remittances brought his assets within the definition of illegally acquired property, and his relatives' properties were also traceable to those unlawful earnings. For the amount held by Ashish Patel, the absence of disclosure of sale proceeds and their whereabouts meant the statutory presumption was not displaced, so forfeiture was sustained. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 03 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151994