The case examined whether properties mortgaged with banks could be released from attachment. The Tribunal ruled that repayment of loans using illicit funds justified attachment to preserve assets for confiscation.
The issue was whether statements and digital records from Customs probes could support FEMA action. The Tribunal ruled they are admissible and sufficient to establish illegal foreign exchange payments.
The case examined whether penalty quantum should reflect the appellant’s role in the transaction. The Tribunal reduced the penalty after noting the dominant involvement of a third party and lack of comprehensive investigation.
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.
