<?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 1073 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788318</link>
    <description>Equivalent-value property may be provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act where traceable proceeds of crime have been siphoned off or layered, provided statutory safeguards are met. Common directorships during the period of alleged criminality, unexplained resignations and share transfers, and failure to establish consideration supported the appellant company&#039;s connection with the alleged fraud. Properties acquired before the alleged offence period were not immune from attachment because their aggregate value was below the identified proceeds of crime and actual tainted assets could not be traced. Multiple FIRs, charge sheets, attempted disposal of property, and transfer patterns supported a recorded reason to believe and risk of alienation, justifying immediate provisional attachment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 08:35:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=891614" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1073 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788318</link>
      <description>Equivalent-value property may be provisionally attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act where traceable proceeds of crime have been siphoned off or layered, provided statutory safeguards are met. Common directorships during the period of alleged criminality, unexplained resignations and share transfers, and failure to establish consideration supported the appellant company&#039;s connection with the alleged fraud. Properties acquired before the alleged offence period were not immune from attachment because their aggregate value was below the identified proceeds of crime and actual tainted assets could not be traced. Multiple FIRs, charge sheets, attempted disposal of property, and transfer patterns supported a recorded reason to believe and risk of alienation, justifying immediate provisional attachment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>