<?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>2017 (6) TMI 1401 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458060</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was treated as sustainable where the authority had recorded reasons in writing and relied on material such as the charge-sheet and investigation record. The Tribunal noted that sections 5 and 8 allow provisional attachment and adjudication, and that prohibitory directions may be issued during investigation to preserve the property. A plea of bona fide purchase did not defeat attachment at that stage, and the retrospectivity argument failed because the scheduled offences were already included from 1 June 2009 and the relevant transaction steps were later. Limited interim possession was nevertheless allowed on monthly deposit terms pending the Special Court proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2024 21:45:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 1401 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458060</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was treated as sustainable where the authority had recorded reasons in writing and relied on material such as the charge-sheet and investigation record. The Tribunal noted that sections 5 and 8 allow provisional attachment and adjudication, and that prohibitory directions may be issued during investigation to preserve the property. A plea of bona fide purchase did not defeat attachment at that stage, and the retrospectivity argument failed because the scheduled offences were already included from 1 June 2009 and the relevant transaction steps were later. Limited interim possession was nevertheless allowed on monthly deposit terms pending the Special Court proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>