<?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>2018 (7) TMI 444 - ATPMLA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363136</link>
    <description>A bona fide secured creditor&#039;s mortgage over property acquired before the alleged tainted activity could not be treated as &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; without a clear factual and statutory nexus to money-laundering. The attachment order failed to establish that the property was derived from criminal activity or liable to be concealed or dealt with to frustrate confiscation, so provisional attachment and confirmation could not be sustained. Later special legislation and amendments recognising priority for secured creditors were applied to hold that the mortgagee&#039;s enforcement rights under the recovery framework prevailed over inconsistent attachment provisions, particularly where the lending transaction was legitimate and unconnected with the scheduled offence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 08:23:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=526179" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 444 - ATPMLA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363136</link>
      <description>A bona fide secured creditor&#039;s mortgage over property acquired before the alleged tainted activity could not be treated as &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; without a clear factual and statutory nexus to money-laundering. The attachment order failed to establish that the property was derived from criminal activity or liable to be concealed or dealt with to frustrate confiscation, so provisional attachment and confirmation could not be sustained. Later special legislation and amendments recognising priority for secured creditors were applied to hold that the mortgagee&#039;s enforcement rights under the recovery framework prevailed over inconsistent attachment provisions, particularly where the lending transaction was legitimate and unconnected with the scheduled offence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>