https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785989 Under the money-laundering framework, attachment was sustained where material showed unexplained cash deposits, property acquisitions in family members' names, and no credible source of funds; the statutory threshold of reason to believe was therefore met, and the provisional attachment and confirmation were upheld. The enforcement authority was not required to independently re-investigate the predicate offence, as its role is confined to identifying prima facie proceeds of crime and related tracing issues. The noticees failed to discharge the burden of explaining the cash investments and asset acquisitions, and properties of equivalent value were held attachable even without direct tracing of the tainted asset. en-us Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Feb 2026 08:24:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785989 Under the money-laundering framework, attachment was sustained where material showed unexplained cash deposits, property acquisitions in family members' names, and no credible source of funds; the statutory threshold of reason to believe was therefore met, and the provisional attachment and confirmation were upheld. The enforcement authority was not required to independently re-investigate the predicate offence, as its role is confined to identifying prima facie proceeds of crime and related tracing issues. The noticees failed to discharge the burden of explaining the cash investments and asset acquisitions, and properties of equivalent value were held attachable even without direct tracing of the tainted asset. Case-Laws Money Laundering Thu, 08 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785989