<?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>Provisional attachment in alleged laundering case partly failed where prior commercial deals lacked nexus, but dairy payment attachment survived.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98763</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment under the anti-money laundering framework was partly invalidated where the Tribunal found no foundational material to show that pre-existing commercial agreements were designed to layer later proceeds of crime or could be retrospectively treated as commercially irrational or inter-connected transactions under Section 23. Attachment based on the first and second transactions was therefore set aside. By contrast, the Tribunal accepted that a delayed payment linked to the dairy sale arrangement was not credibly explained as a later adjustment against other dealings, and sustained attachment to the equivalent value of that amount. The appeals were thus partly allowed, with attachment continuing only to the specified extent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Provisional attachment in alleged laundering case partly failed where prior commercial deals lacked nexus, but dairy payment attachment survived.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98763</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment under the anti-money laundering framework was partly invalidated where the Tribunal found no foundational material to show that pre-existing commercial agreements were designed to layer later proceeds of crime or could be retrospectively treated as commercially irrational or inter-connected transactions under Section 23. Attachment based on the first and second transactions was therefore set aside. By contrast, the Tribunal accepted that a delayed payment linked to the dairy sale arrangement was not credibly explained as a later adjustment against other dealings, and sustained attachment to the equivalent value of that amount. The appeals were thus partly allowed, with attachment continuing only to the specified extent.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>