The appellants argued that old properties could not be attached under PMLA. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that “value of proceeds of crime” covers such assets when tainted funds are unavailable.
The issue was whether handwritten lists and affidavits of relatives were sufficient to explain cash deposits. The Tribunal ruled that self-serving documents without independent corroboration carry no evidentiary value under PMLA.
The tribunal ruled that buying property through a court-supervised auction does not shield a transaction from benami law. Where the lender’s creditworthiness and real source of funds are unproven, provisional attachment is valid.
The Tribunal confirmed that personal and university-linked assets of accused in a massive fake degree fraud are liable to attachment under PMLA, emphasizing that illicit proceeds include property acquired through fraudulent schemes.
The SAFEMA Tribunal confirms that even properties transferred before the 2016 amendment fall under benami rules if the property continues to be held by the benamidar. This ensures all ongoing holdings remain accountable under the Act.
SAFEMA Tribunal confirms attachment of property bought in a third party’s name where the actual consideration was paid directly by the appellant, highlighting that future benefit validates a benami transaction.
The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that property attachment under PMLA requires prima facie proof of a money trail. Mere suspicion or association with accused persons is insufficient to sustain attachment.
The Tribunal held that holding and operating a foreign bank account without RBI approval is a continuing contravention under FEMA. Subsequent repatriation or tax disclosure does not wipe out liability, and penalties were upheld.
The Tribunal ruled that a car financed partly through unexplained cash could be attached under PMLA, even though a bank held a secured interest, reinforcing that tainted funds justify attachment.
Tribunal affirms major penalties for widespread delays and non-reporting of NTRs, STRs, and CBWTRs. Held that systemic AML lapses cannot be excused by technical issues; strict compliance is mandatory.
