<?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 (3) TMI 33 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787278</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment of property as equivalent value of proceeds of crime was upheld where the original tainted funds were no longer traceable. The Tribunal held that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits attachment of equivalent value property when proceeds of crime have been dissipated, provided reasons to believe are recorded on material showing diversion of funds and risk to confiscation proceedings. It also construed the money-laundering law and the securitisation law harmoniously, finding that a prior security interest does not by itself defeat attachment under the anti-money-laundering framework, though the secured creditor may pursue its statutory remedies separately.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:34:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=888583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 33 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787278</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment of property as equivalent value of proceeds of crime was upheld where the original tainted funds were no longer traceable. The Tribunal held that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits attachment of equivalent value property when proceeds of crime have been dissipated, provided reasons to believe are recorded on material showing diversion of funds and risk to confiscation proceedings. It also construed the money-laundering law and the securitisation law harmoniously, finding that a prior security interest does not by itself defeat attachment under the anti-money-laundering framework, though the secured creditor may pursue its statutory remedies separately.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>