<?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>Value-equivalent attachment applies where proceeds of crime are untraceable, and prior-acquired property may be attached.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98427</link>
    <description>Attachment under the Act is not limited to property directly derived from the scheduled offence and may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are not traceable or available. The Tribunal held that, on the facts, unauthorized deposits were collected and diverted, and the tainted funds had been layered and siphoned off, justifying attachment of immovable properties standing in the appellants&#039; names. It rejected the contention that property acquired before the offence is always immune, since that reading would make the statutory concept of value-equivalent attachment redundant. The challenge to the provisional attachment therefore failed and confirmation of attachment was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 10:24:02 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 10:24:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Value-equivalent attachment applies where proceeds of crime are untraceable, and prior-acquired property may be attached.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98427</link>
      <description>Attachment under the Act is not limited to property directly derived from the scheduled offence and may extend to property of equivalent value where the actual proceeds of crime are not traceable or available. The Tribunal held that, on the facts, unauthorized deposits were collected and diverted, and the tainted funds had been layered and siphoned off, justifying attachment of immovable properties standing in the appellants&#039; names. It rejected the contention that property acquired before the offence is always immune, since that reading would make the statutory concept of value-equivalent attachment redundant. The challenge to the provisional attachment therefore failed and confirmation of attachment was sustained.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 10:24:02 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>