<?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 (12) TMI 1554 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784014</link>
    <description>Attachment of property held by persons not named in the FIR/chargesheet was upheld because PMLA targets &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; in whosoever&#039;s possession, and attachment is permissible even against non-accused holders; the challenge was rejected. Attachment of properties acquired prior to the scheduled offence period was sustained by applying the &quot;value thereof&quot; limb in the definition of proceeds of crime, permitting attachment of equivalent-value assets; the ground failed. Release of remaining properties for lack of direct nexus was denied since PMLA allows attachment of indirectly acquired assets and equivalent-value properties irrespective of direct tracing; no relief was granted. Attachment of mortgaged properties was affirmed under the second proviso to s.5(1) PMLA to prevent alienation, while permitting secured creditors to seek auction through the Special Judge subject to safeguards; the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:05:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1554 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784014</link>
      <description>Attachment of property held by persons not named in the FIR/chargesheet was upheld because PMLA targets &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; in whosoever&#039;s possession, and attachment is permissible even against non-accused holders; the challenge was rejected. Attachment of properties acquired prior to the scheduled offence period was sustained by applying the &quot;value thereof&quot; limb in the definition of proceeds of crime, permitting attachment of equivalent-value assets; the ground failed. Release of remaining properties for lack of direct nexus was denied since PMLA allows attachment of indirectly acquired assets and equivalent-value properties irrespective of direct tracing; no relief was granted. Attachment of mortgaged properties was affirmed under the second proviso to s.5(1) PMLA to prevent alienation, while permitting secured creditors to seek auction through the Special Judge subject to safeguards; the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>