<?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>2009 (11) TMI 1009 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288080</link>
    <description>Property derived from criminal activity under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may be provisionally attached even when held by persons not charged with the scheduled offence, because &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; and money laundering are construed broadly to cover direct and indirect involvement. The Tribunal also found that suspicious remittances into an NRE account, coupled with interconnected transactions and inadequate proof of lawful source, failed to rebut the statutory burden under section 24. On the evidence before the Adjudicating Authority, the remittances and properties acquired from them were treated as proceeds of crime, and the provisional attachment was confirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 May 2020 17:55:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 1009 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288080</link>
      <description>Property derived from criminal activity under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may be provisionally attached even when held by persons not charged with the scheduled offence, because &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; and money laundering are construed broadly to cover direct and indirect involvement. The Tribunal also found that suspicious remittances into an NRE account, coupled with interconnected transactions and inadequate proof of lawful source, failed to rebut the statutory burden under section 24. On the evidence before the Adjudicating Authority, the remittances and properties acquired from them were treated as proceeds of crime, and the provisional attachment was confirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>