https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771905 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging property attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant argued that inherited or pre-offence acquired property cannot be attached, and that a ten-year delay since FIR filing invalidated the attachment. The Tribunal held that property inherited or acquired before the scheduled offence can be attached as equivalent value under the second limb of "proceeds of crime" definition in Section 2(1)(u). Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Tribunal ruled that when actual proceeds are unavailable or siphoned off, equivalent value property attachment is permissible. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jun 2025 08:34:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771905 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed an appeal challenging property attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant argued that inherited or pre-offence acquired property cannot be attached, and that a ten-year delay since FIR filing invalidated the attachment. The Tribunal held that property inherited or acquired before the scheduled offence can be attached as equivalent value under the second limb of "proceeds of crime" definition in Section 2(1)(u). Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Tribunal ruled that when actual proceeds are unavailable or siphoned off, equivalent value property attachment is permissible. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771905