<?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 (11) TMI 794 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761808</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed appeals challenging money laundering proceedings related to IPO manipulation schemes. The appellant argued that SEBI&#039;s determination of unlawful gains should limit proceeds of crime calculations, claimed discrepancies in amounts, and alleged discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal held that SEBI&#039;s order actually supported the allegations against appellant, noting that SEBI Act provisions differ from money laundering laws. The entire amount was properly considered proceeds of crime as it was used to defraud the public. No discrepancies existed in the final order, and appellant failed to substantiate discrimination claims. All arguments lacked merit and appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:55:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 794 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761808</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed appeals challenging money laundering proceedings related to IPO manipulation schemes. The appellant argued that SEBI&#039;s determination of unlawful gains should limit proceeds of crime calculations, claimed discrepancies in amounts, and alleged discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal held that SEBI&#039;s order actually supported the allegations against appellant, noting that SEBI Act provisions differ from money laundering laws. The entire amount was properly considered proceeds of crime as it was used to defraud the public. No discrepancies existed in the final order, and appellant failed to substantiate discrimination claims. All arguments lacked merit and appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>