<?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>Provisional Attachment of 20 Properties Upheld Under PML Act in Ponzi Scheme Case</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90442</link>
    <description>The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment of 20 immovable properties under the PML Act, concluding the appellant operated a Ponzi scheme through multiple entities, initially paying returns from new investors&#039; funds before collapsing. The tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s contention that incarceration precluded the risk of property dissipation, noting the appellant&#039;s ability to act via associates or power of attorney to frustrate proceedings. The attachment was upheld as an intermediate measure to preserve the properties for potential confiscation upon conviction, without affecting possession unless exceptional circumstances arise. The AT found no error in the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s confirmation of the attachment order, thereby affirming the restraint on the properties pending trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:36:33 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:36:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=835854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Provisional Attachment of 20 Properties Upheld Under PML Act in Ponzi Scheme Case</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90442</link>
      <description>The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment of 20 immovable properties under the PML Act, concluding the appellant operated a Ponzi scheme through multiple entities, initially paying returns from new investors&#039; funds before collapsing. The tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s contention that incarceration precluded the risk of property dissipation, noting the appellant&#039;s ability to act via associates or power of attorney to frustrate proceedings. The attachment was upheld as an intermediate measure to preserve the properties for potential confiscation upon conviction, without affecting possession unless exceptional circumstances arise. The AT found no error in the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s confirmation of the attachment order, thereby affirming the restraint on the properties pending trial.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 08:36:33 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>