<?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 allowed; provisional attachment under Section 5 PMLA upheld as allocation letter deemed property and proceeds of crime</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93599</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned Single Judge judgment and upheld the DirectorateÐ²Ð‚â„¢s provisional attachment order under Section 5 of the PMLA. The Court held the allocation letter to constitute Ð²Ð‚ÑšpropertyÐ²Ð‚Ñœ within Section 2(1)(v) and that misrepresentation in obtaining the allocation generated Ð²Ð‚Ñšproceeds of crimeÐ²Ð‚Ñœ under Section 2(1)(u), thereby attracting an offence under Section 3; continued possession, utilisation and monetisation of the coal constituted ongoing laundering. The HC rejected a pre-allocation temporal cutoff and affirmed the DirectorateÐ²Ð‚â„¢s jurisdiction to attach the quantified value of extracted coal where a prima facie nexus to predicate offences and proceeds was established and the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of taint.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:52 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=860554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal allowed; provisional attachment under Section 5 PMLA upheld as allocation letter deemed property and proceeds of crime</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93599</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned Single Judge judgment and upheld the DirectorateÐ²Ð‚â„¢s provisional attachment order under Section 5 of the PMLA. The Court held the allocation letter to constitute Ð²Ð‚ÑšpropertyÐ²Ð‚Ñœ within Section 2(1)(v) and that misrepresentation in obtaining the allocation generated Ð²Ð‚Ñšproceeds of crimeÐ²Ð‚Ñœ under Section 2(1)(u), thereby attracting an offence under Section 3; continued possession, utilisation and monetisation of the coal constituted ongoing laundering. The HC rejected a pre-allocation temporal cutoff and affirmed the DirectorateÐ²Ð‚â„¢s jurisdiction to attach the quantified value of extracted coal where a prima facie nexus to predicate offences and proceeds was established and the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of taint.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:33:52 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>