https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460375 The Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA at New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging provisional attachment of property under money laundering provisions. The appellant received Rs. 2,07,25,500 allegedly for legal services but failed to substantiate this claim with evidence. The Tribunal held that proceeds of crime can be attached even when held by non-accused persons, as the attachment targets the proceeds rather than the individual. The 365-day investigation period under Section 8(3)(a) excludes interim court order periods, and attachment is permissible regardless of whether the property holder is named as accused in the FIR or ECIR. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jan 2025 19:07:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460375 The Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA at New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging provisional attachment of property under money laundering provisions. The appellant received Rs. 2,07,25,500 allegedly for legal services but failed to substantiate this claim with evidence. The Tribunal held that proceeds of crime can be attached even when held by non-accused persons, as the attachment targets the proceeds rather than the individual. The 365-day investigation period under Section 8(3)(a) excludes interim court order periods, and attachment is permissible regardless of whether the property holder is named as accused in the FIR or ECIR. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460375