<?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>Pre-offence property bought before scheduled crime: can it be attached as equivalent-value &quot;proceeds&quot; under PMLA; appeals dismissed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95299</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether property acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence can be provisionally attached as &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; on an equivalent value basis under the PMLA. Interpreting the definition as comprising multiple limbs, the forum held that the &quot;equivalent value&quot; limb permits attachment where the actual proceeds are untraceable or unavailable because they were siphoned off or vanished; a narrower reading would defeat the Act&#039;s object by enabling offenders to frustrate recovery. Applying binding precedent and rejecting contrary authority, the provisional attachment was upheld and the appeals were dismissed. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Pre-offence property bought before scheduled crime: can it be attached as equivalent-value &quot;proceeds&quot; under PMLA; appeals dismissed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95299</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether property acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence can be provisionally attached as &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; on an equivalent value basis under the PMLA. Interpreting the definition as comprising multiple limbs, the forum held that the &quot;equivalent value&quot; limb permits attachment where the actual proceeds are untraceable or unavailable because they were siphoned off or vanished; a narrower reading would defeat the Act&#039;s object by enabling offenders to frustrate recovery. Applying binding precedent and rejecting contrary authority, the provisional attachment was upheld and the appeals were dismissed. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95299</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>