<?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>Adjudicating Authority composition and money-laundering findings determine validity of freezing and retention proceedings under statutory safeguards.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103430</link>
    <description>Statutory composition of the Adjudicating Authority requires a legally constituted Bench; absent an evidence-based finding that a Chairperson-only Bench was validly constituted, its adjudication is coram non judice and a nullity. The authority must identify the relevant property and record a prima facie finding that it is involved in money-laundering; a need to retain or freeze property for adjudication cannot replace that finding. Bank accounts or business turnover alone are not proceeds of crime without a reasoned nexus to scheduled-offence criminal activity. An appellate body cannot supply this omitted foundational finding. Non-communication of reasons to believe also breaches statutory safeguards, vitiating freezing and retention proceedings. The impugned order was quashed without deciding whether any offence was committed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 08:44:39 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 08:44:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=920991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Adjudicating Authority composition and money-laundering findings determine validity of freezing and retention proceedings under statutory safeguards.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103430</link>
      <description>Statutory composition of the Adjudicating Authority requires a legally constituted Bench; absent an evidence-based finding that a Chairperson-only Bench was validly constituted, its adjudication is coram non judice and a nullity. The authority must identify the relevant property and record a prima facie finding that it is involved in money-laundering; a need to retain or freeze property for adjudication cannot replace that finding. Bank accounts or business turnover alone are not proceeds of crime without a reasoned nexus to scheduled-offence criminal activity. An appellate body cannot supply this omitted foundational finding. Non-communication of reasons to believe also breaches statutory safeguards, vitiating freezing and retention proceedings. The impugned order was quashed without deciding whether any offence was committed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 08:44:39 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=103430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>