<?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 1298 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777110</link>
    <description>AT dismissed all appeals, upholding attachment of properties as proceeds of crime. The tribunal found appellants&#039; admissions and witness statements established a conspiracy and siphoning of bank funds, showing the properties derived from illicit proceeds. Claims of lawful purchase or non-involvement were rejected where appellants either admitted association with the co-conspirators, failed to prove lawful source of funds for purchases, or offered inconsistent arguments. One appellant&#039;s registered sale deed failed to establish consideration from legitimate sources. As appellants did not show how attachment affected them or rebut the evidence, the attachments were sustained and the appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:40:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=845593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1298 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777110</link>
      <description>AT dismissed all appeals, upholding attachment of properties as proceeds of crime. The tribunal found appellants&#039; admissions and witness statements established a conspiracy and siphoning of bank funds, showing the properties derived from illicit proceeds. Claims of lawful purchase or non-involvement were rejected where appellants either admitted association with the co-conspirators, failed to prove lawful source of funds for purchases, or offered inconsistent arguments. One appellant&#039;s registered sale deed failed to establish consideration from legitimate sources. As appellants did not show how attachment affected them or rebut the evidence, the attachments were sustained and the appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>