<?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>Freezing of bank accounts under money-laundering law requires proof of proceeds of crime and a reasoned finding of nexus.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100044</link>
    <description>Frozen bank accounts cannot be retained under the PMLA unless foundational facts first show the existence of proceeds of crime and the account holder&#039;s link with the alleged laundering activity. The Tribunal found no material that the frozen funds were proceeds of crime or that the appellant was named in, or connected to, the predicate copyright offence; assertions of relationship, investment, or online betting were insufficient, and the burden could not shift on the Directorate&#039;s bare claim. It also held that continued freezing could not rest merely on an ongoing investigation without a reasoned finding that the property was involved in money-laundering. The retention order was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Freezing of bank accounts under money-laundering law requires proof of proceeds of crime and a reasoned finding of nexus.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100044</link>
      <description>Frozen bank accounts cannot be retained under the PMLA unless foundational facts first show the existence of proceeds of crime and the account holder&#039;s link with the alleged laundering activity. The Tribunal found no material that the frozen funds were proceeds of crime or that the appellant was named in, or connected to, the predicate copyright offence; assertions of relationship, investment, or online betting were insufficient, and the burden could not shift on the Directorate&#039;s bare claim. It also held that continued freezing could not rest merely on an ongoing investigation without a reasoned finding that the property was involved in money-laundering. The retention order was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2026 08:27:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100044</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>