<?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 1076 - ATPMLA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347018</link>
    <description>Amounts collected through lawful copyright licensing and held as royalty distributions were not shown to be proceeds of crime because the record did not establish a nexus with any scheduled offence. Mere non-payment of part of the royalty pool or a dispute with a member did not convert the entire corpus or related investments into tainted property under the PMLA. Provisional attachment also could not be confirmed because the material before the Adjudicating Authority did not support a reasoned belief that the property was involved in money-laundering, and the appellant&#039;s explanation was not properly considered. The confirmation order was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:56:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487056" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1076 - ATPMLA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347018</link>
      <description>Amounts collected through lawful copyright licensing and held as royalty distributions were not shown to be proceeds of crime because the record did not establish a nexus with any scheduled offence. Mere non-payment of part of the royalty pool or a dispute with a member did not convert the entire corpus or related investments into tainted property under the PMLA. Provisional attachment also could not be confirmed because the material before the Adjudicating Authority did not support a reasoned belief that the property was involved in money-laundering, and the appellant&#039;s explanation was not properly considered. The confirmation order was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>