<?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 (11) TMI 956 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781488</link>
    <description>Appeal to AT dismissed. Tribunal found a prima facie case of money-laundering under s.3 (2002 Act), noting appellants remain accused in pending criminal proceedings and failed to discharge or substantiate innocence. Documents offered to prove lawful source of attached properties-unregistered sale deeds, unverified ancestral claims, lack of registered firm records, invoices or bank evidence for alleged timber business-were unreliable or insufficient and contradicted statements under s.50(2)/(3). Tribunal declined to exclude the 180-day calculation for termination and refused to interfere with the impugned provisional attachment orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 956 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781488</link>
      <description>Appeal to AT dismissed. Tribunal found a prima facie case of money-laundering under s.3 (2002 Act), noting appellants remain accused in pending criminal proceedings and failed to discharge or substantiate innocence. Documents offered to prove lawful source of attached properties-unregistered sale deeds, unverified ancestral claims, lack of registered firm records, invoices or bank evidence for alleged timber business-were unreliable or insufficient and contradicted statements under s.50(2)/(3). Tribunal declined to exclude the 180-day calculation for termination and refused to interfere with the impugned provisional attachment orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>