The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that properties belonging to an alleged abettor cannot be attached under the PBPT Act unless those properties are independently proved to be benami properties. The Tribunal clarified that the Act permits attachment only of benami properties held by a benamidar or beneficial owner.
The Appellate Tribunal held that routing demonetized cash through another person’s bank account and transferring it back constituted a benami transaction under the PBPT Act. The ruling clarified that cash qualifies as “property” and can form the basis of benami proceedings.
SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal held that flats purchased in third-party names using appellant’s own funds constituted a valid benami transaction. Tribunal ruled that payment of consideration by one person while property is held by another attracts Section 2(9)(A) of amended Benami Act.
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA held that routing demonetized cash through another person’s bank account constituted a benami transaction under the PBPT Act. The Tribunal ruled that cash qualifies as “property” and attachment could continue to the extent of the remaining benefit retained.
The Tribunal ruled that transactions predating the alleged crime cannot be treated as proceeds of crime without a clear link. It set aside most attachments due to absence of foundational evidence. The decision reinforces the necessity of establishing a direct nexus under PMLA.
The Tribunal ruled that taxation of income does not negate its use in benami transactions. Even disclosed or assessed income can form part of a benami arrangement. The judgment clarifies the independent scope of benami law.
The Tribunal held that once allegations of money laundering are established, the burden shifts to the accused. Failure to prove legitimate income led to continuation of freezing and seizure.
The Tribunal held that incorrect identification of property does not invalidate proceedings when benami investment is established. It allowed attachment of assets derived from bogus share premium.
The issue involved recall of orders passed after the respondent failed to attend hearings. The Tribunal ruled that continued absence despite ample chances showed negligence, and recall relief could not be granted.
The Tribunal upheld attachment as no documentary evidence was provided to establish the source of funds. It held that unexplained money can be treated as proceeds of crime.
