<?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>2026 (1) TMI 720 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784964</link>
    <description>Where actual tainted property cannot be traced, attachment may extend to property of equivalent value if the statutory conditions are satisfied; the tribunal upheld attachment on that basis. It also held that provisional attachment and its confirmation were supported by material showing fraudulent borrowings, diversion of loan proceeds, outstanding liabilities, and a risk that the properties could be concealed or dealt with to frustrate confiscation. The Enforcement Directorate was not required to conduct an independent re-investigation of the predicate offences, because its role is limited to examining the existence and trail of proceeds of crime, layering, dissipation, and the genuineness of claimants. The appeals failed, subject to protection for properties already mortgaged and auctioned by banks as directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 11:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=878540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 720 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784964</link>
      <description>Where actual tainted property cannot be traced, attachment may extend to property of equivalent value if the statutory conditions are satisfied; the tribunal upheld attachment on that basis. It also held that provisional attachment and its confirmation were supported by material showing fraudulent borrowings, diversion of loan proceeds, outstanding liabilities, and a risk that the properties could be concealed or dealt with to frustrate confiscation. The Enforcement Directorate was not required to conduct an independent re-investigation of the predicate offences, because its role is limited to examining the existence and trail of proceeds of crime, layering, dissipation, and the genuineness of claimants. The appeals failed, subject to protection for properties already mortgaged and auctioned by banks as directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>