<?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 (7) TMI 155 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774087</link>
    <description>Property may be provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as equivalent value property even where the immovable assets were acquired before the Act or before the alleged scheduled offence, if direct proceeds of crime are unavailable and recorded reasons show a risk of concealment, transfer, or frustration of confiscation proceedings. The tribunal treated separate proof of a direct nexus with the original tainted assets as unnecessary in such circumstances, accepted reliance on material from the predicate investigation, and held that settlement deeds or unsubstantiated claims of lawful income did not displace the attachment where the record indicated layered and diverted proceeds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 08:34:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 155 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774087</link>
      <description>Property may be provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as equivalent value property even where the immovable assets were acquired before the Act or before the alleged scheduled offence, if direct proceeds of crime are unavailable and recorded reasons show a risk of concealment, transfer, or frustration of confiscation proceedings. The tribunal treated separate proof of a direct nexus with the original tainted assets as unnecessary in such circumstances, accepted reliance on material from the predicate investigation, and held that settlement deeds or unsubstantiated claims of lawful income did not displace the attachment where the record indicated layered and diverted proceeds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>