<?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>Bank balance attachment can rest on evidence of proceeds of crime and intended payment, not initial suspicion alone.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105874</link>
    <description>Evidence collected after initial suspicion can support attachment of bank balances as proceeds of crime, rather than leave the attachment based on suspicion alone. An admission that the balance was payable to an entity controlled by the principal accused contradicted its description as the payer&#039;s working capital. Seeking release to pay that entity, despite its having initiated no recovery proceedings, and the managing director&#039;s statement under Section 50(2) supported an inference of money laundering and an intention to benefit the principal accused. The admitted intended payment remained material even if the statement did not personally name the accused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 09:27:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 09:27:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=933870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Bank balance attachment can rest on evidence of proceeds of crime and intended payment, not initial suspicion alone.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105874</link>
      <description>Evidence collected after initial suspicion can support attachment of bank balances as proceeds of crime, rather than leave the attachment based on suspicion alone. An admission that the balance was payable to an entity controlled by the principal accused contradicted its description as the payer&#039;s working capital. Seeking release to pay that entity, despite its having initiated no recovery proceedings, and the managing director&#039;s statement under Section 50(2) supported an inference of money laundering and an intention to benefit the principal accused. The admitted intended payment remained material even if the statement did not personally name the accused.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 09:27:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=105874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>