<?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 1708 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782240</link>
    <description>AT upheld ED&#039;s provisional attachment of properties linked to illicit granite quarrying, rejecting appellants&#039; contentions of absence of &quot;reason to believe,&quot; reliance on an unsigned charge-sheet, and non-involvement in scheduled offences. It found that FIRs and final reports named appellants as accused and that expert &quot;Evaluation Reports&quot; established illegal extraction and pecuniary gains reinvested in immovable properties, constituting &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; under PMLA, including attachment of property of equivalent value. The tribunal held that the presence of multiple scheduled predicate offences sustained PMLA proceedings even if illegal mining per se was not scheduled. All issues were decided against the appellants, and the appeal was dismissed, with liberty to contest issues in the criminal trial.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1708 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782240</link>
      <description>AT upheld ED&#039;s provisional attachment of properties linked to illicit granite quarrying, rejecting appellants&#039; contentions of absence of &quot;reason to believe,&quot; reliance on an unsigned charge-sheet, and non-involvement in scheduled offences. It found that FIRs and final reports named appellants as accused and that expert &quot;Evaluation Reports&quot; established illegal extraction and pecuniary gains reinvested in immovable properties, constituting &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; under PMLA, including attachment of property of equivalent value. The tribunal held that the presence of multiple scheduled predicate offences sustained PMLA proceedings even if illegal mining per se was not scheduled. All issues were decided against the appellants, and the appeal was dismissed, with liberty to contest issues in the criminal trial.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>