<?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 (8) TMI 504 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776317</link>
    <description>Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are not traceable, and provisional attachment is sustained if investigation material creates the requisite reason to believe that confiscation may be frustrated. Money-laundering was treated as an independent and continuing offence, so later inclusion or notification of the predicate offence did not defeat proceedings where laundering activity continued. Attachment was also held maintainable against a person not named as an accused, because the decisive question is whether the property represents proceeds of crime or their value and is connected with the laundering process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2025 05:20:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=841796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 504 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776317</link>
      <description>Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, attachment may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are not traceable, and provisional attachment is sustained if investigation material creates the requisite reason to believe that confiscation may be frustrated. Money-laundering was treated as an independent and continuing offence, so later inclusion or notification of the predicate offence did not defeat proceedings where laundering activity continued. Attachment was also held maintainable against a person not named as an accused, because the decisive question is whether the property represents proceeds of crime or their value and is connected with the laundering process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>