The SAFEMA Tribunal has upheld the attachment of ₹8.28 lakh under the PMLA, ruling that the appellant could not prove the bona fide nature of the funds due to the absence of relevant bank statements. The court emphasized that simply claiming to be a victim is insufficient without requisite evidence.
SAFEMA Tribunal Upholds PMLA Attachment
The Special Authority for Forfeiture of Property of the Government of India (SAFEMA) Tribunal recently upheld a ₹8.28 lakh attachment made under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), emphasizing the burden of proof on the appellant to establish the legitimacy of the funds in question.
The Tribunal examined the case where the appellant claimed victimhood without providing necessary bank statements, which led to the attachment. The ruling highlighted that a mere assertion of being a victim does not fulfill the legal requirement for proving bona fide receipt of funds, as stipulated under the PMLA.
In its reasoning, the Tribunal referred to statutory provisions under the PMLA that mandate substantive evidence to challenge attachments. The lack of supporting documentation was central to the decision, as it indicated non-compliance with the Act's requirements.
Legal practitioners should note that this ruling reinforces the principle that claimants must furnish adequate proof when contesting attachments under the PMLA. It serves as a reminder for due diligence in financial dealings to avoid similar consequences.
Citations
- SAFEMA Tribunal (2026) 1 SAFEMA 207
