https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788620 Secured creditor priority under recovery statutes does not override attachment and confiscation under the money laundering regime when the property is treated as proceeds of crime. The Bombay HC held that the two enactments operate in different fields, and the confiscatory scheme of the money laundering law prevails over general priority clauses in recovery legislation. Property provisionally attached and confirmed under that law cannot be released merely because a creditor asserts a mortgage or charge, though a bona fide claimant may seek restoration before the Special Court under the statutory mechanism. The appellate tribunal's view that recovery statutes displaced the money laundering law was unsustainable, and the attachment was restored. en-us Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:05:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788620 Secured creditor priority under recovery statutes does not override attachment and confiscation under the money laundering regime when the property is treated as proceeds of crime. The Bombay HC held that the two enactments operate in different fields, and the confiscatory scheme of the money laundering law prevails over general priority clauses in recovery legislation. Property provisionally attached and confirmed under that law cannot be released merely because a creditor asserts a mortgage or charge, though a bona fide claimant may seek restoration before the Special Court under the statutory mechanism. The appellate tribunal's view that recovery statutes displaced the money laundering law was unsustainable, and the attachment was restored. Case-Laws Money Laundering Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788620