<?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 955 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781487</link>
    <description>Under the amended Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, provisional attachment is permissible where the competent authority records reasons to believe, on the basis of material in its possession, that non-attachment is likely to frustrate proceedings; the recorded reasons here were sufficient, and the absence of a charge for the scheduled offence did not defeat the attachment. A notice under Section 8(1) is valid where the Adjudicating Authority considers the complaint and material before forming the requisite belief; the same-day issuance of notice, even on a voluminous record, did not by itself show non-application of mind.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 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=865017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 955 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781487</link>
      <description>Under the amended Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, provisional attachment is permissible where the competent authority records reasons to believe, on the basis of material in its possession, that non-attachment is likely to frustrate proceedings; the recorded reasons here were sufficient, and the absence of a charge for the scheduled offence did not defeat the attachment. A notice under Section 8(1) is valid where the Adjudicating Authority considers the complaint and material before forming the requisite belief; the same-day issuance of notice, even on a voluminous record, did not by itself show non-application of mind.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>