<?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>2025 (4) TMI 110 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768196</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed appeals challenging a Provisional Attachment Order under PMLA, ruling that delays in predicate offence investigation do not invalidate PMLA proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that PMLA actions operate independently from predicate offence investigations, and appellant failed to cite any legal provisions or precedents establishing that such delays should affect attachment orders. The court noted that while an FIR was registered against appellant for serious offences, the ED had filed its Prosecution Complaint without delay, properly establishing jurisdiction under PMLA regardless of the status of the predicate investigation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2025 07:50:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=811346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 110 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768196</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed appeals challenging a Provisional Attachment Order under PMLA, ruling that delays in predicate offence investigation do not invalidate PMLA proceedings. The tribunal emphasized that PMLA actions operate independently from predicate offence investigations, and appellant failed to cite any legal provisions or precedents establishing that such delays should affect attachment orders. The court noted that while an FIR was registered against appellant for serious offences, the ED had filed its Prosecution Complaint without delay, properly establishing jurisdiction under PMLA regardless of the status of the predicate investigation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>