<?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 (4) TMI 1005 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789936</link>
    <description>A secured creditor&#039;s prior mortgage does not by itself invalidate a provisional attachment confirmed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; the attachment may continue, subject to the creditor&#039;s bona fide lawful claim and the property&#039;s excess value. The Tribunal also rejected the objection that the property was acquired before the offence period, noting that the alleged unlawful activity had begun earlier and the acquisition was after that commencement. Allegations of non-application of mind were also not accepted because the adjudicating authority had recorded detailed reasons. The attachment was sustained, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 08:21:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1005 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789936</link>
      <description>A secured creditor&#039;s prior mortgage does not by itself invalidate a provisional attachment confirmed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; the attachment may continue, subject to the creditor&#039;s bona fide lawful claim and the property&#039;s excess value. The Tribunal also rejected the objection that the property was acquired before the offence period, noting that the alleged unlawful activity had begun earlier and the acquisition was after that commencement. Allegations of non-application of mind were also not accepted because the adjudicating authority had recorded detailed reasons. The attachment was sustained, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>