https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193855 Funds infused into a closely held company may be treated as property involved in money-laundering where the record shows interconnected transactions linking the investments to proceeds of crime, and the corporate form will not defeat provisional attachment on those facts. The person resisting attachment bears the burden of showing that the property is untainted, and failure to produce basic source and accounting records weakens that case. Prior freezing under NDPS proceedings does not bar provisional attachment under the PMLA, because the two remedies serve different statutory purposes. The attachment order is also sustainable where the notice and order together disclose the material and the reason to believe required for action. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193855 Funds infused into a closely held company may be treated as property involved in money-laundering where the record shows interconnected transactions linking the investments to proceeds of crime, and the corporate form will not defeat provisional attachment on those facts. The person resisting attachment bears the burden of showing that the property is untainted, and failure to produce basic source and accounting records weakens that case. Prior freezing under NDPS proceedings does not bar provisional attachment under the PMLA, because the two remedies serve different statutory purposes. The attachment order is also sustainable where the notice and order together disclose the material and the reason to believe required for action. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193855