https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435688 Under the forfeiture statute, property is liable to forfeiture where the person affected fails to satisfactorily prove the lawful source of the acquisition, because the burden shifts to that person once notice is issued on reason to believe. The Court found that the partnership capital and land value were not reliably explained and that the unexplained investment formed the major part of the acquisition, so forfeiture was justified. It also held that the statutory option to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture was unavailable because that relief applies only where the unproved source relates to less than one-half of the relevant funds or assets. The delay challenge was rejected as part of a continuing statutory process. en-us Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Sep 2023 10:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435688 Under the forfeiture statute, property is liable to forfeiture where the person affected fails to satisfactorily prove the lawful source of the acquisition, because the burden shifts to that person once notice is issued on reason to believe. The Court found that the partnership capital and land value were not reliably explained and that the unexplained investment formed the major part of the acquisition, so forfeiture was justified. It also held that the statutory option to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture was unavailable because that relief applies only where the unproved source relates to less than one-half of the relevant funds or assets. The delay challenge was rejected as part of a continuing statutory process. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435688