<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (8) TMI 798 - ATPMLA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346740</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment of the Vishal House property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was upheld because the material before the Tribunal, including the CBI charge-sheet, supporting documents and Enforcement Directorate statements, satisfied the statutory requirement of reason to believe that the property represented proceeds of crime. The Tribunal found a traceable fund-flow link with the concerned group entities and rejected the contention that the absence of a direct charge against the appellant or the timing of the auction purchase displaced the attachment. It also found no legal infirmity in the confirmation order and no basis to displace the statutory presumptions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:19:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 798 - ATPMLA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346740</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment of the Vishal House property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was upheld because the material before the Tribunal, including the CBI charge-sheet, supporting documents and Enforcement Directorate statements, satisfied the statutory requirement of reason to believe that the property represented proceeds of crime. The Tribunal found a traceable fund-flow link with the concerned group entities and rejected the contention that the absence of a direct charge against the appellant or the timing of the auction purchase displaced the attachment. It also found no legal infirmity in the confirmation order and no basis to displace the statutory presumptions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>