https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762890 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging seizure of cash and jewellery under PMLA, 2002. Appellant contended no criminal activity was attributed to him and he was not named in FIR or chargesheet, making proceedings illegal. The Tribunal held that ED could proceed with investigation based on prima facie evidence showing appellant allegedly earned illegal commission as intermediary in DAP import without legitimate requirement. Despite appellant not being named in criminal proceedings, ED could conduct search and seizure to determine if retention was necessary for investigation. Given the investigation stage and liquid nature of seized assets, release was deemed improper. en-us Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Dec 2024 08:58:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762890 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging seizure of cash and jewellery under PMLA, 2002. Appellant contended no criminal activity was attributed to him and he was not named in FIR or chargesheet, making proceedings illegal. The Tribunal held that ED could proceed with investigation based on prima facie evidence showing appellant allegedly earned illegal commission as intermediary in DAP import without legitimate requirement. Despite appellant not being named in criminal proceedings, ED could conduct search and seizure to determine if retention was necessary for investigation. Given the investigation stage and liquid nature of seized assets, release was deemed improper. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762890