<?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>2020 (10) TMI 1108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400134</link>
    <description>Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits provisional attachment only when the authorised officer records written reasons, on material in possession, that the person holds proceeds of crime and that those proceeds are likely to be concealed, transferred or otherwise dealt with to frustrate confiscation. The two requirements are cumulative, so possession of proceeds of crime does not by itself establish the further likelihood under clause (b). Where the attachment order lacked separate reasons on that point, the attachment could not be sustained. Conditional directions preserving attachment through indemnity bonds and restraint on release were also inconsistent with the statutory scheme and with the Tribunal&#039;s own reasoning.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2020 09:27:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 1108 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400134</link>
      <description>Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits provisional attachment only when the authorised officer records written reasons, on material in possession, that the person holds proceeds of crime and that those proceeds are likely to be concealed, transferred or otherwise dealt with to frustrate confiscation. The two requirements are cumulative, so possession of proceeds of crime does not by itself establish the further likelihood under clause (b). Where the attachment order lacked separate reasons on that point, the attachment could not be sustained. Conditional directions preserving attachment through indemnity bonds and restraint on release were also inconsistent with the statutory scheme and with the Tribunal&#039;s own reasoning.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>