<?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 (6) TMI 17 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771904</link>
    <description>Properties traceable to criminal activity may be attached under money-laundering law even if acquired before the alleged offence period, because proceeds of crime includes the value of tainted property and, where the original asset is unavailable, equivalent value may be proceeded against. Attachment is not defeated merely because the property holder was not arraigned as an accused in the predicate offence, so long as the property is linked to proceeds of crime or money-laundering activity. A monetary threshold did not negate the scheduled offence analysis on the facts, and the Tribunal found the statutory reasons-to-believe requirement satisfied on the basis of investigation material, statements and documents. The attachment and its confirmation were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 08:34:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=826070" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 17 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771904</link>
      <description>Properties traceable to criminal activity may be attached under money-laundering law even if acquired before the alleged offence period, because proceeds of crime includes the value of tainted property and, where the original asset is unavailable, equivalent value may be proceeded against. Attachment is not defeated merely because the property holder was not arraigned as an accused in the predicate offence, so long as the property is linked to proceeds of crime or money-laundering activity. A monetary threshold did not negate the scheduled offence analysis on the facts, and the Tribunal found the statutory reasons-to-believe requirement satisfied on the basis of investigation material, statements and documents. The attachment and its confirmation were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>