<?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 1736 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784196</link>
    <description>Whether the attached properties constituted &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; liable to attachment under the PMLA was the dominant issue. The HC held that the record supported a reasonable inference of laundering, as the accused gave colourable explanations for source of funds and consideration, admitted a false narrative of loan agreements to camouflage transactions, and the formation of an HUF and use of the appellant as power-of-attorney holder showed a direct nexus to acquisition of properties. Statements recorded under s.164 CrPC and other materials justified treating the assets as tainted. As the adjudicating authority and appellate tribunal had rendered concurrent, well-reasoned factual findings, no legal error warranting interference was shown; the appeal was dismissed and the attachment upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1736 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784196</link>
      <description>Whether the attached properties constituted &quot;proceeds of crime&quot; liable to attachment under the PMLA was the dominant issue. The HC held that the record supported a reasonable inference of laundering, as the accused gave colourable explanations for source of funds and consideration, admitted a false narrative of loan agreements to camouflage transactions, and the formation of an HUF and use of the appellant as power-of-attorney holder showed a direct nexus to acquisition of properties. Statements recorded under s.164 CrPC and other materials justified treating the assets as tainted. As the adjudicating authority and appellate tribunal had rendered concurrent, well-reasoned factual findings, no legal error warranting interference was shown; the appeal was dismissed and the attachment upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>