https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782685 The AT under SAFEMA upheld the provisional attachment of properties linked to a shell company involved in diversion of bank funds, treating them as "proceeds of crime" or their "value" under the PMLA, even though the properties were acquired before the alleged bank fraud period. The Tribunal rejected the appellant-entity's argument that pre-offence acquisition insulated the properties from attachment, emphasizing that a restrictive interpretation would defeat the Act's object. The AT noted that the appellant failed to discharge the statutory burden under Section 8(1) to prove legitimate sources of acquisition. Finding no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order, the appeal was dismissed and the attachment sustained. en-us Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782685 The AT under SAFEMA upheld the provisional attachment of properties linked to a shell company involved in diversion of bank funds, treating them as "proceeds of crime" or their "value" under the PMLA, even though the properties were acquired before the alleged bank fraud period. The Tribunal rejected the appellant-entity's argument that pre-offence acquisition insulated the properties from attachment, emphasizing that a restrictive interpretation would defeat the Act's object. The AT noted that the appellant failed to discharge the statutory burden under Section 8(1) to prove legitimate sources of acquisition. Finding no infirmity in the Adjudicating Authority's order, the appeal was dismissed and the attachment sustained. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782685