<?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>PMLA provisional attachment upheld for equivalent value property, despite pending predicate-offence challenge and non-arrayment as accused.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99672</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment under PMLA can extend to property of equivalent value where the original proceeds of crime are unavailable, even if the attached property was acquired before the alleged offence; the attachment was upheld on that basis. Pendency of a challenge to the predicate offence before the Supreme Court did not by itself invalidate the attachment, because the predicate offence had not been quashed and the interim stay did not extinguish it. The Tribunal also held that provisional attachment is not confined to a person formally named as an accused in the predicate offence, if the person is otherwise involved in the offence or is a recipient of proceeds of crime. The attachment was sustained, subject to the final outcome before the Supreme Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>PMLA provisional attachment upheld for equivalent value property, despite pending predicate-offence challenge and non-arrayment as accused.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99672</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment under PMLA can extend to property of equivalent value where the original proceeds of crime are unavailable, even if the attached property was acquired before the alleged offence; the attachment was upheld on that basis. Pendency of a challenge to the predicate offence before the Supreme Court did not by itself invalidate the attachment, because the predicate offence had not been quashed and the interim stay did not extinguish it. The Tribunal also held that provisional attachment is not confined to a person formally named as an accused in the predicate offence, if the person is otherwise involved in the offence or is a recipient of proceeds of crime. The attachment was sustained, subject to the final outcome before the Supreme Court.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>