The key issue was whether cash falls within the definition of property under the PBPT Act. The Tribunal ruled that cash is a tangible movable asset and may be confiscated as benami property when ownership and source remain unverified.
The case examined whether Indian assets could remain seized after foreign asset value was repatriated. The Tribunal ruled that once the objective of Section 37A is fulfilled, continued attachment loses its basis.
The appellant claimed the disputed funds were received unknowingly and had attempted to return them. The Tribunal granted relief by ordering release of the attached account after deposit of the entire disputed sum.
The Tribunal held that bank accounts cannot remain frozen merely because the account holder is related to a suspect or under investigation. The ED must first establish a prima facie connection between the property and proceeds of crime.
The Tribunal held that retention of seized assets can continue under Section 8(3) when a PMLA prosecution complaint is already pending. The key takeaway is that ED need not file a fresh or supplementary complaint for every newly seized asset.
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.
