<?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>2019 (5) TMI 816 - ATPMLA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380088</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 is sustainable only where the property is shown to be proceeds of crime or otherwise lawfully liable to be secured under the statutory scheme. Here, a residential property purchased before the alleged generation of proceeds of crime, and unrelated to funds already secured in criminal court, was treated as an unwarranted and disproportionate attachment. The text also emphasises that attachment and adjudication must follow the statutory procedure, with proper consideration of relevant material and application of mind; a mechanical order unsupported by a clear nexus to laundering activity cannot stand. On that reasoning, the attachment and consequential adjudication were unsustainable and the property was directed to be released.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 May 2019 07:54:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=571023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 816 - ATPMLA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380088</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 is sustainable only where the property is shown to be proceeds of crime or otherwise lawfully liable to be secured under the statutory scheme. Here, a residential property purchased before the alleged generation of proceeds of crime, and unrelated to funds already secured in criminal court, was treated as an unwarranted and disproportionate attachment. The text also emphasises that attachment and adjudication must follow the statutory procedure, with proper consideration of relevant material and application of mind; a mechanical order unsupported by a clear nexus to laundering activity cannot stand. On that reasoning, the attachment and consequential adjudication were unsustainable and the property was directed to be released.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>