https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458086 The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA, New Delhi allowed the appeal challenging the Adjudicating Authority's order under PMLA 2002 permitting retention of seized documents and digital evidence in a money laundering case involving bank fraud conspiracy. The appellant argued non-recording of reasons under sections 17(1), 20(4), and 8(1), but later chose not to press these contentions. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider relevant developments and pertinent facts in reaching its conclusion, noting that investigations were not at a preliminary stage as claimed. The seized documents constituted records under the Act, while mobile phone data qualified as both property and records. The appeal was disposed of along with pending applications. en-us Thu, 02 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Oct 2024 07:30:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458086 The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA, New Delhi allowed the appeal challenging the Adjudicating Authority's order under PMLA 2002 permitting retention of seized documents and digital evidence in a money laundering case involving bank fraud conspiracy. The appellant argued non-recording of reasons under sections 17(1), 20(4), and 8(1), but later chose not to press these contentions. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider relevant developments and pertinent facts in reaching its conclusion, noting that investigations were not at a preliminary stage as claimed. The seized documents constituted records under the Act, while mobile phone data qualified as both property and records. The appeal was disposed of along with pending applications. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 02 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458086