https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764928 The Tribunal accepted exclusion of the Covid-19 period in computing the 180-day limit for confirmation of a provisional attachment under the PMLA, so the confirmation order did not lapse. It also held that property may be attached in the hands of a non-accused person where the property represents proceeds of crime, and that a prosecution complaint need not be pending against every person whose property is attached. On the facts, the record showed a money trail from diverted bank funds to the attached entities, the relevant purchase fell within the check period, and equivalent-value attachment was permissible where proceeds of crime were unavailable, so the confirmed attachment was sustained. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764928 The Tribunal accepted exclusion of the Covid-19 period in computing the 180-day limit for confirmation of a provisional attachment under the PMLA, so the confirmation order did not lapse. It also held that property may be attached in the hands of a non-accused person where the property represents proceeds of crime, and that a prosecution complaint need not be pending against every person whose property is attached. On the facts, the record showed a money trail from diverted bank funds to the attached entities, the relevant purchase fell within the check period, and equivalent-value attachment was permissible where proceeds of crime were unavailable, so the confirmed attachment was sustained. Case-Laws Money Laundering Wed, 08 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764928