https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767803 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA held that ED cannot attach properties exceeding the value of seized proceeds without evidence of additional scheduled offences. Appellants faced charges under Customs Act Sections 135(1)(a)(i)(A) and 135(1)(b)(i)(A) for foreign gold worth Rs. 13.56 crores already seized by DRI. The Tribunal ruled that ED cannot assume other scheduled offences were committed and attach additional properties based solely on unexplained sources of income. While PMLA attachment can extend to properties not directly linked to scheduled offences, it cannot exceed the alleged proceeds' value without proof of additional criminal activity. Appeal disposed. en-us Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 06:50:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767803 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA held that ED cannot attach properties exceeding the value of seized proceeds without evidence of additional scheduled offences. Appellants faced charges under Customs Act Sections 135(1)(a)(i)(A) and 135(1)(b)(i)(A) for foreign gold worth Rs. 13.56 crores already seized by DRI. The Tribunal ruled that ED cannot assume other scheduled offences were committed and attach additional properties based solely on unexplained sources of income. While PMLA attachment can extend to properties not directly linked to scheduled offences, it cannot exceed the alleged proceeds' value without proof of additional criminal activity. Appeal disposed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767803