https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458136 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA held that provisional attachment orders in money laundering cases require proper evidence, not mere hearsay statements. Where no recovery was made during searches at the appellant's residence and office, the burden of proof remains with the prosecution to establish money laundering involvement under Section 3 of the Act. The tribunal ruled that without prima facie evidence or recovery, accusations cannot be sustained solely on apprehension or co-accused statements. The impugned order was modified in favor of the appellant, with observations regarding money laundering involvement being quashed as premature before charge framing. The appeal was partly allowed with modifications to the original order. en-us Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Oct 2024 20:01:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458136 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA held that provisional attachment orders in money laundering cases require proper evidence, not mere hearsay statements. Where no recovery was made during searches at the appellant's residence and office, the burden of proof remains with the prosecution to establish money laundering involvement under Section 3 of the Act. The tribunal ruled that without prima facie evidence or recovery, accusations cannot be sustained solely on apprehension or co-accused statements. The impugned order was modified in favor of the appellant, with observations regarding money laundering involvement being quashed as premature before charge framing. The appeal was partly allowed with modifications to the original order. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458136