<?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 (8) TMI 781 - ATPMLA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384592</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act was found sustainable where the record showed a prima facie link between the attached properties and alleged proceeds of crime through inflated demolition bills, fund transfers to entities connected with the appellant, and cash withdrawals. The Tribunal noted the appellant&#039;s role in the investigation, the acquisition of the properties during the relevant period, the delay in the attachment order, and the absence of action against the contractor company, but held that the attachment could not be lifted at that stage. The attachment was upheld, while the respondent was restrained from taking physical possession of the attached properties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Aug 2019 07:16:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 781 - ATPMLA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384592</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act was found sustainable where the record showed a prima facie link between the attached properties and alleged proceeds of crime through inflated demolition bills, fund transfers to entities connected with the appellant, and cash withdrawals. The Tribunal noted the appellant&#039;s role in the investigation, the acquisition of the properties during the relevant period, the delay in the attachment order, and the absence of action against the contractor company, but held that the attachment could not be lifted at that stage. The attachment was upheld, while the respondent was restrained from taking physical possession of the attached properties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>