https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773487 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed the appeal challenging provisional attachment orders under PMLA. The Tribunal held that attachment remains valid despite absence of prosecution complaint at time of confirmation. Regarding the 90-day filing requirement, the Tribunal ruled that the timeline commenced from the amendment date (19.04.2018) rather than the original order date (12.03.2018), and since the complaint was filed within this period, attachment did not lapse. The Tribunal also confirmed that properties can be attached even when holders are not accused in the predicate offence, citing SC precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case. en-us Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 08:25:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773487 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed the appeal challenging provisional attachment orders under PMLA. The Tribunal held that attachment remains valid despite absence of prosecution complaint at time of confirmation. Regarding the 90-day filing requirement, the Tribunal ruled that the timeline commenced from the amendment date (19.04.2018) rather than the original order date (12.03.2018), and since the complaint was filed within this period, attachment did not lapse. The Tribunal also confirmed that properties can be attached even when holders are not accused in the predicate offence, citing SC precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773487