https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93243 The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that attachment under the PMLA of property already subject to a pre-existing mortgage in favour of the appellant bank does not invalidate the attachment and that secured creditors retain priority interest but such priority does not preclude attachment by the respondent directorate; the appellant, a scheduled commercial bank not implicated in the scheduled offence, failed to establish merit for setting aside the attachment. The AT nonetheless recognized the appellant's alternative remedy and clarified that the appellant is entitled to pursue interlocutory or substantive relief under Section 8(7) or 8(8) before the Sp. Ct. during pendency of prosecution, and this order does not bar such recourse. en-us Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:22 +0530 Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93243 The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that attachment under the PMLA of property already subject to a pre-existing mortgage in favour of the appellant bank does not invalidate the attachment and that secured creditors retain priority interest but such priority does not preclude attachment by the respondent directorate; the appellant, a scheduled commercial bank not implicated in the scheduled offence, failed to establish merit for setting aside the attachment. The AT nonetheless recognized the appellant's alternative remedy and clarified that the appellant is entitled to pursue interlocutory or substantive relief under Section 8(7) or 8(8) before the Sp. Ct. during pendency of prosecution, and this order does not bar such recourse. Highlights Money Laundering Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:22 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93243