<?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 (10) TMI 802 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800859</link>
    <description>Property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, including its value, falls within proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Registration of a scheduled offence alone does not establish that every asset is tainted; a cumulative money trail can establish a prima facie nexus. Bank-account analysis and statements linked project escrow funds to the property&#039;s acquisition. Independent business income, accounting disclosure, and partial funding from the project account did not break that nexus. The attachment therefore satisfied the reason-to-believe requirement and warranted confirmation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=929475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 802 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800859</link>
      <description>Property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, including its value, falls within proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Registration of a scheduled offence alone does not establish that every asset is tainted; a cumulative money trail can establish a prima facie nexus. Bank-account analysis and statements linked project escrow funds to the property&#039;s acquisition. Independent business income, accounting disclosure, and partial funding from the project account did not break that nexus. The attachment therefore satisfied the reason-to-believe requirement and warranted confirmation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>