<?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>Freezing power under PMLA may be applied where investigative material gives reasons to believe proceeds of crime, even despite prior encumbrances.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97801</link>
    <description>The text explains that the power to freeze property under Section 17(1A) of PMLA may be exercised where investigative material (FIR/ECIR and related records) provides reasons to believe funds are proceeds of crime and the claimant fails to explain source; in such cases freezing is justified. Retention for adjudication under Section 20(4) is supportable where prima facie involvement in money laundering exists and continued retention does not cause prejudice. A pre-existing lien or bank guarantee does not, by itself, prevent seizure or freezing when investigation indicates the property is implicated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:21:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=891076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Freezing power under PMLA may be applied where investigative material gives reasons to believe proceeds of crime, even despite prior encumbrances.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97801</link>
      <description>The text explains that the power to freeze property under Section 17(1A) of PMLA may be exercised where investigative material (FIR/ECIR and related records) provides reasons to believe funds are proceeds of crime and the claimant fails to explain source; in such cases freezing is justified. Retention for adjudication under Section 20(4) is supportable where prima facie involvement in money laundering exists and continued retention does not cause prejudice. A pre-existing lien or bank guarantee does not, by itself, prevent seizure or freezing when investigation indicates the property is implicated.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2026 08:21:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>