<?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 (7) TMI 725 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794839</link>
    <description>Attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act is described as sustainable where the available material shows, on a preponderance of probabilities, that property represents proceeds of crime or their value. The text identifies bank transfer records, statements recorded under section 50, cash book entries, and corroborative witness statements as material capable of establishing the flow of tainted funds to the appellant and supporting confirmation of attachment. It also states that prior purchase of the attached property does not automatically defeat attachment, because the statutory scheme permits attachment of equivalent value property as a protective measure pending trial. On that basis, the attachment was confirmed and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 09:18:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 725 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794839</link>
      <description>Attachment under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act is described as sustainable where the available material shows, on a preponderance of probabilities, that property represents proceeds of crime or their value. The text identifies bank transfer records, statements recorded under section 50, cash book entries, and corroborative witness statements as material capable of establishing the flow of tainted funds to the appellant and supporting confirmation of attachment. It also states that prior purchase of the attached property does not automatically defeat attachment, because the statutory scheme permits attachment of equivalent value property as a protective measure pending trial. On that basis, the attachment was confirmed and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>