<?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>Provisional Attachment Order Upheld Against Property Purchased with Proceeds of Crime Despite Civil Court Decree</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86917</link>
    <description>The AT upheld the Provisional Attachment Order against property owned by Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd., a group company of the main accused. The appellants&#039; claim based on a civil court decree was rejected as Heera Retail was not party to the civil suit, rendering the decree non-binding on the company. The property had been purchased using proceeds of crime (diverted depositors&#039; funds) prior to the decree. The Tribunal determined that the collusive decree obtained by appellants could not prevail against unchallenged sale deeds executed in favor of the accused&#039;s company. The attachment remains valid subject to the Supreme Court&#039;s directions regarding realization of investors&#039; dues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:31:29 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:31:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=809932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Provisional Attachment Order Upheld Against Property Purchased with Proceeds of Crime Despite Civil Court Decree</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86917</link>
      <description>The AT upheld the Provisional Attachment Order against property owned by Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd., a group company of the main accused. The appellants&#039; claim based on a civil court decree was rejected as Heera Retail was not party to the civil suit, rendering the decree non-binding on the company. The property had been purchased using proceeds of crime (diverted depositors&#039; funds) prior to the decree. The Tribunal determined that the collusive decree obtained by appellants could not prevail against unchallenged sale deeds executed in favor of the accused&#039;s company. The attachment remains valid subject to the Supreme Court&#039;s directions regarding realization of investors&#039; dues.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:31:29 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>