<?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 (10) TMI 888 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780092</link>
    <description>Under PMLA, provisional attachment may extend to the &quot;value thereof&quot; of proceeds of crime on a holistic reading of Section 5(1), and the second proviso does not bar such attachment where the statutory material shows a laundering nexus. Property in the name of a third party, including an immovable asset purchased before the alleged crime period, may still be attached if surrounding facts such as relationship with the accused, unexplained acquisitions, income records, and fund movement indicate layering or concealment of tainted assets. Uncorroborated explanations for property purchases and funds received from an investigated contractor were rejected, and the attachment order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 888 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780092</link>
      <description>Under PMLA, provisional attachment may extend to the &quot;value thereof&quot; of proceeds of crime on a holistic reading of Section 5(1), and the second proviso does not bar such attachment where the statutory material shows a laundering nexus. Property in the name of a third party, including an immovable asset purchased before the alleged crime period, may still be attached if surrounding facts such as relationship with the accused, unexplained acquisitions, income records, and fund movement indicate layering or concealment of tainted assets. Uncorroborated explanations for property purchases and funds received from an investigated contractor were rejected, and the attachment order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>