<?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 under PMLA Section 5 upheld; extortion, land fraud and unexplained funds deemed proceeds of crime.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94354</link>
    <description>AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the PMLA, holding that appellants A1-A3 were prima facie involved in the scheduled (predicate) offence and consequent money laundering. Investigations pursuant to FIRs and ECIR established that they extorted money using muscle power, procured land documents, manipulated revenue records, and sold properties, thereby generating &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; and projecting them as untainted. The quantification of proceeds of crime was based on these findings. AT noted that appellants failed to disclose any legitimate source of funds or produce evidence for the purchase of the attached properties. Distinguishing reliance on the SC order cited, AT found no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:42:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:42:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=866155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Provisional attachment under PMLA Section 5 upheld; extortion, land fraud and unexplained funds deemed proceeds of crime.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94354</link>
      <description>AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the PMLA, holding that appellants A1-A3 were prima facie involved in the scheduled (predicate) offence and consequent money laundering. Investigations pursuant to FIRs and ECIR established that they extorted money using muscle power, procured land documents, manipulated revenue records, and sold properties, thereby generating &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; and projecting them as untainted. The quantification of proceeds of crime was based on these findings. AT noted that appellants failed to disclose any legitimate source of funds or produce evidence for the purchase of the attached properties. Distinguishing reliance on the SC order cited, AT found no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:42:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>