<?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>2024 (8) TMI 403 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756699</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging seizure of Indian Rupees under PMLA, 2002 in a Hawala transaction case. The appellant argued they were not accused in FIR/ECIR and that seized currency was legitimately withdrawn from bank accounts. The Tribunal held that evidence showed Hawala transactions totaling Rs.15 crore involving the appellant facilitating activities for other parties. The appellant failed to explain money sources, account deposits, or legitimate business use of withdrawn funds. Statement under Section 50 proved appellant&#039;s involvement in illegal transactions. Appeal dismissed due to insufficient evidence of innocence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 09:06:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=763328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 403 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756699</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging seizure of Indian Rupees under PMLA, 2002 in a Hawala transaction case. The appellant argued they were not accused in FIR/ECIR and that seized currency was legitimately withdrawn from bank accounts. The Tribunal held that evidence showed Hawala transactions totaling Rs.15 crore involving the appellant facilitating activities for other parties. The appellant failed to explain money sources, account deposits, or legitimate business use of withdrawn funds. Statement under Section 50 proved appellant&#039;s involvement in illegal transactions. Appeal dismissed due to insufficient evidence of innocence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756699</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>