<?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 1446 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781978</link>
    <description>AT dismissed the appeal of the appellant NBFC, upholding the action taken under SAFEMA/PMLA arising from its predatory digital lending model. AT found that the NBFC&#039;s effective interest rates of 1500-2000% per annum, achieved through exorbitant processing fees and rapid fund rotation, violated RBI&#039;s Fair Practices Code and internal pricing guidelines, despite absence of a formal interest-rate cap. AT further held that the NBFC had impermissibly outsourced core management and lending functions, contrary to RBI directions, and was responsible for harassment, blackmail, and extortion by tele-callers, with multiple borrower suicides linked to its business model.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:57:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=866692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1446 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781978</link>
      <description>AT dismissed the appeal of the appellant NBFC, upholding the action taken under SAFEMA/PMLA arising from its predatory digital lending model. AT found that the NBFC&#039;s effective interest rates of 1500-2000% per annum, achieved through exorbitant processing fees and rapid fund rotation, violated RBI&#039;s Fair Practices Code and internal pricing guidelines, despite absence of a formal interest-rate cap. AT further held that the NBFC had impermissibly outsourced core management and lending functions, contrary to RBI directions, and was responsible for harassment, blackmail, and extortion by tele-callers, with multiple borrower suicides linked to its business model.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>