https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774348 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed the appeal challenging provisional attachment orders under PMLA. The Tribunal held that properties can be attached even when owners are not named as accused in predicate offences, and that the relevant date for money laundering is when tainted property is projected as untainted, regardless of PMLA's enforcement date. ED's actions were found compliant with procedural requirements, including freezing accounts beyond 30 days through provisional attachment orders rather than Section 17(4) applications. The appellants failed to prove legitimate sources of income for attached properties, and all procedural challenges were rejected in favor of ED. en-us Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jul 2025 08:36:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774348 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA dismissed the appeal challenging provisional attachment orders under PMLA. The Tribunal held that properties can be attached even when owners are not named as accused in predicate offences, and that the relevant date for money laundering is when tainted property is projected as untainted, regardless of PMLA's enforcement date. ED's actions were found compliant with procedural requirements, including freezing accounts beyond 30 days through provisional attachment orders rather than Section 17(4) applications. The appellants failed to prove legitimate sources of income for attached properties, and all procedural challenges were rejected in favor of ED. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774348