<?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 (9) TMI 740 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798714</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is examined in relation to assets allegedly acquired through layered share transactions involving bribe proceeds. Statements recorded under statutory powers, banking and trading records, inflated share prices, investments in non-functioning companies, and purchaser funding from external sources support a prima facie allegation that proceeds of crime were projected as legitimate long-term capital gains. Interconnected transactions attract the statutory presumption, while the appellant&#039;s role in the university trust weakens a claim of lack of influence. Pending scheduled-offence and money-laundering trials support preservation of the attached assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 08:13:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=922128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 740 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798714</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is examined in relation to assets allegedly acquired through layered share transactions involving bribe proceeds. Statements recorded under statutory powers, banking and trading records, inflated share prices, investments in non-functioning companies, and purchaser funding from external sources support a prima facie allegation that proceeds of crime were projected as legitimate long-term capital gains. Interconnected transactions attract the statutory presumption, while the appellant&#039;s role in the university trust weakens a claim of lack of influence. Pending scheduled-offence and money-laundering trials support preservation of the attached assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>