https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91633 The AT upheld the attachment of properties under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) of PMLA, finding sufficient reason to believe that the assets were proceeds of crime involved in money laundering, despite appellants not being accused in any predicate offence or the proceeds not being specifically quantified. The Tribunal rejected the contention that properties acquired prior to PMLA's commencement are immune from attachment, applying the equivalent value doctrine where proceeds were siphoned off. It further held that a single-member bench of the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority was competent under Section 6(5) and not coram non-judice, as the statute does not mandate a two-member bench in all cases. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the validity of provisional attachment orders and procedural compliance by the Enforcement Directorate. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:25 +0530 Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91633 The AT upheld the attachment of properties under Sections 5(1) and 8(1) of PMLA, finding sufficient reason to believe that the assets were proceeds of crime involved in money laundering, despite appellants not being accused in any predicate offence or the proceeds not being specifically quantified. The Tribunal rejected the contention that properties acquired prior to PMLA's commencement are immune from attachment, applying the equivalent value doctrine where proceeds were siphoned off. It further held that a single-member bench of the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority was competent under Section 6(5) and not coram non-judice, as the statute does not mandate a two-member bench in all cases. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the validity of provisional attachment orders and procedural compliance by the Enforcement Directorate. Highlights Money Laundering Mon, 18 Aug 2025 08:39:25 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=91633