<?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 (9) TMI 1705 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464781</link>
    <description>AT upholds provisional attachment of demat shares and immovable properties under PMLA s.5(1) as proceeds of crime, finding corporate veil may be pierced where corporate form was used to defraud investors and noting reasons to believe were recorded. Attachment under the second proviso was justified to prevent likely transfer/alienation. Adjudicating Authority&#039;s prima facie findings of money-laundering were proper; trial convictions further supported continuation of attachment. However, AT set aside attachment to the extent of properties acquired by two appellants from sale of shares in 2005 (specified sums) and otherwise dismissed the appeal, disposing it partly in favour of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 20:20:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1705 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464781</link>
      <description>AT upholds provisional attachment of demat shares and immovable properties under PMLA s.5(1) as proceeds of crime, finding corporate veil may be pierced where corporate form was used to defraud investors and noting reasons to believe were recorded. Attachment under the second proviso was justified to prevent likely transfer/alienation. Adjudicating Authority&#039;s prima facie findings of money-laundering were proper; trial convictions further supported continuation of attachment. However, AT set aside attachment to the extent of properties acquired by two appellants from sale of shares in 2005 (specified sums) and otherwise dismissed the appeal, disposing it partly in favour of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>