<?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>Appeal dismissed; frozen bank accounts retained pending trial after failure to explain source of funds under s.8(1)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92117</link>
    <description>AT dismissed the appeals and upheld retention of the appellant&#039;s frozen bank accounts pending trial. The Tribunal found sufficient prima facie evidence linking the appellant and associated corporate entities to an alleged Ponzi/MLM money-circulation scheme, including benami firm usage, routing of proceeds through related companies and personal accounts, recovery of incriminating material on search, and receipt of large &quot;commissions.&quot; The appellant failed to discharge the statutory obligation under s.8(1) of the Act to explain the source of funds; statements under ss.50(2)-50(3) were treated as corroborative. On these findings, AT concluded continued attachment of funds was justified and dismissed the appeals for lack of merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:26 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=847396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal dismissed; frozen bank accounts retained pending trial after failure to explain source of funds under s.8(1)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92117</link>
      <description>AT dismissed the appeals and upheld retention of the appellant&#039;s frozen bank accounts pending trial. The Tribunal found sufficient prima facie evidence linking the appellant and associated corporate entities to an alleged Ponzi/MLM money-circulation scheme, including benami firm usage, routing of proceeds through related companies and personal accounts, recovery of incriminating material on search, and receipt of large &quot;commissions.&quot; The appellant failed to discharge the statutory obligation under s.8(1) of the Act to explain the source of funds; statements under ss.50(2)-50(3) were treated as corroborative. On these findings, AT concluded continued attachment of funds was justified and dismissed the appeals for lack of merit.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:26 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>