<?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>2025 (2) TMI 1777 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468139</link>
    <description>Money-laundering is treated as an independent and continuing offence, so the 2009 amendment to the PMLA Schedule did not bar action where the alleged laundering activity continued after the offence became scheduled. Properties and pre-existing investments could be attached as equivalent value of proceeds of crime when the tainted assets had been siphoned off or layered. Provisional attachment was not invalid merely because no charge-sheet had yet been filed in the scheduled offence, since attachment may proceed on the authority&#039;s reason to believe that non-attachment may frustrate proceedings. Pendency of a criminal revision against framing of charge also did not prevent attachment proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 22:39:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1777 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468139</link>
      <description>Money-laundering is treated as an independent and continuing offence, so the 2009 amendment to the PMLA Schedule did not bar action where the alleged laundering activity continued after the offence became scheduled. Properties and pre-existing investments could be attached as equivalent value of proceeds of crime when the tainted assets had been siphoned off or layered. Provisional attachment was not invalid merely because no charge-sheet had yet been filed in the scheduled offence, since attachment may proceed on the authority&#039;s reason to believe that non-attachment may frustrate proceedings. Pendency of a criminal revision against framing of charge also did not prevent attachment proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>