https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85025 The AT upheld the provisional attachment order u/s 5 of the PMLA, rejecting the appellant's contentions. It held that there was sufficient reason to believe the appellant possessed proceeds of crime. Money laundering being a continuing offence, the issue of retrospective application doesn't arise. The property's acquisition through public auction has no bearing as the definition of proceeds of crime includes property derived indirectly. The notice u/s 8(1) was valid given the evidence of proceeds of crime. Mere attachment doesn't alter ownership or possession except in exceptional circumstances per SC precedents. The procedural validity of actions under PMLA was confirmed. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:16:26 +0530 Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:16:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85025 The AT upheld the provisional attachment order u/s 5 of the PMLA, rejecting the appellant's contentions. It held that there was sufficient reason to believe the appellant possessed proceeds of crime. Money laundering being a continuing offence, the issue of retrospective application doesn't arise. The property's acquisition through public auction has no bearing as the definition of proceeds of crime includes property derived indirectly. The notice u/s 8(1) was valid given the evidence of proceeds of crime. Mere attachment doesn't alter ownership or possession except in exceptional circumstances per SC precedents. The procedural validity of actions under PMLA was confirmed. Highlights Money Laundering Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:16:26 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85025