The Tribunal dismissed the appeal after finding that bank records, agreements, and admissions established benami elements. Procedural objections were held insufficient to override substantive findings.
The issue was whether payments received by private firms were genuine business income or tainted funds. The Tribunal held that advance payments and manipulated tendering showed diversion of NRHM money, justifying attachment.
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 Tribunal examined whether failure to separately communicate reasons under Section 24(1) invalidates benami proceedings. It ruled that reasons embedded in the show cause notice itself are sufficient, affirming that procedural compliance was met and attachment was valid.
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 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.
