<?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 572 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768658</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging seizure and freezing orders in a money laundering case. The appellant company, along with co-entities, allegedly defrauded users of &#039;Garena Free Fire&#039; game through unauthorized deductions, collecting Rs.2850 crore and transmitting Rs.2320 crore abroad. The Tribunal found proper compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 17 and 20(1) of the Act of 2002, including recording reasons to believe. The company failed to disclose the source of Rs.100 crore as required under Section 8(1). The Adjudicating Authority correctly retained seized property pending trial court determination, noting ongoing investigation and non-cooperation by accused persons with ED proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:40:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=813518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 572 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768658</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging seizure and freezing orders in a money laundering case. The appellant company, along with co-entities, allegedly defrauded users of &#039;Garena Free Fire&#039; game through unauthorized deductions, collecting Rs.2850 crore and transmitting Rs.2320 crore abroad. The Tribunal found proper compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 17 and 20(1) of the Act of 2002, including recording reasons to believe. The company failed to disclose the source of Rs.100 crore as required under Section 8(1). The Adjudicating Authority correctly retained seized property pending trial court determination, noting ongoing investigation and non-cooperation by accused persons with ED proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>