<?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 596 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787841</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment of seized cash may be confirmed where a filed charge sheet together with corroborative investigative material and voluntary disclosures create a prima facie link to proceeds of crime; the statutory presumption in interconnected transactions supports a reason to believe and justifies interim attachment as a protective measure pending trial. Procedural provisions do not automatically bar confirmation merely because the property is in criminal court custody, and absence of contemporaneous sale evidence undermines later exculpatory explanations. Outcome: the provisional attachment is confirmed and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant enforcement agency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 08:36:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=890321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 596 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787841</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment of seized cash may be confirmed where a filed charge sheet together with corroborative investigative material and voluntary disclosures create a prima facie link to proceeds of crime; the statutory presumption in interconnected transactions supports a reason to believe and justifies interim attachment as a protective measure pending trial. Procedural provisions do not automatically bar confirmation merely because the property is in criminal court custody, and absence of contemporaneous sale evidence undermines later exculpatory explanations. Outcome: the provisional attachment is confirmed and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant enforcement agency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>