<?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>PMLA Section 2(1)(u): provisional attachment valid when property is treated as untainted proceeds triggering ECIR, not acquisition date</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92336</link>
    <description>The AT dismissed the appeals and upheld provisional attachment under the PMLA, holding the relevant date for money-laundering is when alleged proceeds are projected as untainted property (triggering an ECIR) rather than date of acquisition. The Tribunal applied the extended definition of &quot;proceeds of crime,&quot; including the second limb (value/equivalent property), rejecting appellants&#039; contention that pre-offence acquisitions are immune where proceeds were allegedly siphoned off. It held ED need not re-investigate predicate offences already subject to police/CBI probe and sustained attachment despite appellants&#039; limited declared assets, finding the quantum of fraud relevant to scheduled offence classification. Appeals dismissed; victim bank permitted to assert its claims; criminal trials unaffected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:38:59 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=849096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>PMLA Section 2(1)(u): provisional attachment valid when property is treated as untainted proceeds triggering ECIR, not acquisition date</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92336</link>
      <description>The AT dismissed the appeals and upheld provisional attachment under the PMLA, holding the relevant date for money-laundering is when alleged proceeds are projected as untainted property (triggering an ECIR) rather than date of acquisition. The Tribunal applied the extended definition of &quot;proceeds of crime,&quot; including the second limb (value/equivalent property), rejecting appellants&#039; contention that pre-offence acquisitions are immune where proceeds were allegedly siphoned off. It held ED need not re-investigate predicate offences already subject to police/CBI probe and sustained attachment despite appellants&#039; limited declared assets, finding the quantum of fraud relevant to scheduled offence classification. Appeals dismissed; victim bank permitted to assert its claims; criminal trials unaffected.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:38:59 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>