<?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>Provisional attachment - Appeal dismissed; Rs.8 crore held proceeds of crime from Ponzi-like scheme, admissions u/s 50(2) PMLA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93466</link>
    <description>The AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional attachment order, finding that Rs. 8 crores in the appellant&#039;s possession constituted proceeds of crime arising from a Ponzi-like scheme and were not repaid to investors with requisite proof. The tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s contention that Rs. 1.50 crores and other sums constituted refunds or legitimate investments, noting admissions under Section 50(2) of PMLA and inconsistent, self-created documentation. Payments totaling Rs. 2,12,76,710/- for doctors, equipment and utilities were not substantiated as repayments of the secured amounts. The AT also affirmed that property valuation must reflect value at execution/possession and, absent credible proof of a Rs.100 crore valuation, attachment limited to proceeds was appropriate. Appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:20 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Provisional attachment - Appeal dismissed; Rs.8 crore held proceeds of crime from Ponzi-like scheme, admissions u/s 50(2) PMLA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93466</link>
      <description>The AT dismissed the appeal and upheld the provisional attachment order, finding that Rs. 8 crores in the appellant&#039;s possession constituted proceeds of crime arising from a Ponzi-like scheme and were not repaid to investors with requisite proof. The tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s contention that Rs. 1.50 crores and other sums constituted refunds or legitimate investments, noting admissions under Section 50(2) of PMLA and inconsistent, self-created documentation. Payments totaling Rs. 2,12,76,710/- for doctors, equipment and utilities were not substantiated as repayments of the secured amounts. The AT also affirmed that property valuation must reflect value at execution/possession and, absent credible proof of a Rs.100 crore valuation, attachment limited to proceeds was appropriate. Appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2025 09:08:20 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>