<?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 1439 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790370</link>
    <description>Money-laundering proceedings can continue where the laundering activity under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 occurred after the relevant IPC offences were brought into the Schedule, because the decisive focus is the commission of money-laundering linked to proceeds of crime, not the date of the predicate offence. Provisional attachment of property in a sister&#039;s name was sustained where the claimant failed to prove an independent lawful source of funds and the statutory presumption under section 24 operated against the appellants. The narrower alleged crime period was rejected on the facts, with the proceeds of crime traced over later financial years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 08:52:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898199" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1439 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790370</link>
      <description>Money-laundering proceedings can continue where the laundering activity under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 occurred after the relevant IPC offences were brought into the Schedule, because the decisive focus is the commission of money-laundering linked to proceeds of crime, not the date of the predicate offence. Provisional attachment of property in a sister&#039;s name was sustained where the claimant failed to prove an independent lawful source of funds and the statutory presumption under section 24 operated against the appellants. The narrower alleged crime period was rejected on the facts, with the proceeds of crime traced over later financial years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>