<?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>2023 (8) TMI 1599 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459786</link>
    <description>Cross-examination in summary proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not an automatic right and may be allowed only on a proper showing. The Adjudicating Authority acts under a statutory procedure and the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, so the request must be supported by an actual witness examination or deposition. Where no statement of the proposed Enforcement Directorate witness had been recorded before the Adjudicating Authority or in the search and seizure process, the foundation for cross-examination was absent. The reverse-burden framework under section 24 also meant cross-examination could not be used to shift the statutory burden of proof, so the refusal of the prayer was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 00:31:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=784806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 1599 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459786</link>
      <description>Cross-examination in summary proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not an automatic right and may be allowed only on a proper showing. The Adjudicating Authority acts under a statutory procedure and the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, so the request must be supported by an actual witness examination or deposition. Where no statement of the proposed Enforcement Directorate witness had been recorded before the Adjudicating Authority or in the search and seizure process, the foundation for cross-examination was absent. The reverse-burden framework under section 24 also meant cross-examination could not be used to shift the statutory burden of proof, so the refusal of the prayer was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>