<?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 1435 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788680</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment under PMLA Section 5(1) must rest on recorded reasons, based on material in possession, that the property itself is proceeds of crime and is likely to be concealed, transferred, or dealt with to frustrate confiscation. The tribunal found that the mortgaged properties were already charged to the banks, possession had been taken by them, and some assets had been auctioned, while the record did not support the new claim that the properties were direct or indirect proceeds of crime. Treating the attachment as one only of value, the tribunal held there was no substantiation that non-attachment would frustrate proceedings and set aside the attachment order as unsustainable against the banks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:07:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1435 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788680</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment under PMLA Section 5(1) must rest on recorded reasons, based on material in possession, that the property itself is proceeds of crime and is likely to be concealed, transferred, or dealt with to frustrate confiscation. The tribunal found that the mortgaged properties were already charged to the banks, possession had been taken by them, and some assets had been auctioned, while the record did not support the new claim that the properties were direct or indirect proceeds of crime. Treating the attachment as one only of value, the tribunal held there was no substantiation that non-attachment would frustrate proceedings and set aside the attachment order as unsustainable against the banks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788680</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>