CA Sansaar
SC declines anticipatory bail to CA in Rs. 640 Cr cyber fraud case, surrender ordered in 10 days
Print
The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to extend anticipatory bail to a chartered accountant facing allegations in a Rs.640-crore cyber fraud and money-laundering probe. The Court also upheld the Delhi High Court’s earlier refusal and directed the accused to surrender before investigators within 10 days.
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Augustine George Masih refused pre-arrest protection to Bhaskar Yadav, noting that the accusations indicated a layered financial arrangement and that custodial interrogation may be necessary to examine the transactions in depth.
Earlier, on February 2, the Delhi High Court had rejected anticipatory bail petitions filed by Yadav and co-accused Ashok Kumar Sharma, describing the alleged laundering as an “intricate mesh” involving the proceeds of crime. In its 22-page order, the High Court observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had made out a case for custodial questioning considering the scale, structure and complexity of the money trail.
The High Court also recorded the agency’s claim that the accused, described as financial professionals, allegedly facilitated multi-layered movement of funds to obscure the origin of money allegedly siphoned from victims.
The investigation originates from two FIRs registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police, relating to cyber fraud totalling about Rs.640 crore. The allegations include fraud linked to online betting and gambling platforms, fake part-time job offers, and phishing operations. The ED has alleged that the proceeds were routed through over 5,000 mule accounts across India and then moved to a UAE-based payment platform.
Investigators have further alleged that a portion of the funds was withdrawn in cash in Dubai using debit/credit cards linked to Indian bank accounts, indicating cross-border movement. The agency has also claimed that a wider network—including chartered accountants, company secretaries, and crypto traders—worked together to layer and launder the alleged proceeds.
While rejecting the plea, the High Court clarified that cryptocurrency transactions, by themselves, are not illegal in India and generally raise questions of taxation; however, it stressed that the present matter concerns alleged fraudulent collection of money from investors followed by laundering steps designed to disrupt the money trail.
The High Court also noted allegations of attempts to influence the investigation, including claims of assault on investigating personnel, bribing local police to settle complaints, and destruction of electronic evidence—factors it said weighed against granting pre-arrest bail.
Acknowledging that personal liberty is a fundamental right, the High Court nonetheless held that it cannot supersede the need for a fair and effective investigation in a case with major economic implications.
With the Supreme Court declining relief, the accused must now surrender and join the ED investigation within the stated time period.
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Augustine George Masih refused pre-arrest protection to Bhaskar Yadav, noting that the accusations indicated a layered financial arrangement and that custodial interrogation may be necessary to examine the transactions in depth.
Earlier, on February 2, the Delhi High Court had rejected anticipatory bail petitions filed by Yadav and co-accused Ashok Kumar Sharma, describing the alleged laundering as an “intricate mesh” involving the proceeds of crime. In its 22-page order, the High Court observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had made out a case for custodial questioning considering the scale, structure and complexity of the money trail.
The High Court also recorded the agency’s claim that the accused, described as financial professionals, allegedly facilitated multi-layered movement of funds to obscure the origin of money allegedly siphoned from victims.
The investigation originates from two FIRs registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police, relating to cyber fraud totalling about Rs.640 crore. The allegations include fraud linked to online betting and gambling platforms, fake part-time job offers, and phishing operations. The ED has alleged that the proceeds were routed through over 5,000 mule accounts across India and then moved to a UAE-based payment platform.
Investigators have further alleged that a portion of the funds was withdrawn in cash in Dubai using debit/credit cards linked to Indian bank accounts, indicating cross-border movement. The agency has also claimed that a wider network—including chartered accountants, company secretaries, and crypto traders—worked together to layer and launder the alleged proceeds.
While rejecting the plea, the High Court clarified that cryptocurrency transactions, by themselves, are not illegal in India and generally raise questions of taxation; however, it stressed that the present matter concerns alleged fraudulent collection of money from investors followed by laundering steps designed to disrupt the money trail.
The High Court also noted allegations of attempts to influence the investigation, including claims of assault on investigating personnel, bribing local police to settle complaints, and destruction of electronic evidence—factors it said weighed against granting pre-arrest bail.
Acknowledging that personal liberty is a fundamental right, the High Court nonetheless held that it cannot supersede the need for a fair and effective investigation in a case with major economic implications.
With the Supreme Court declining relief, the accused must now surrender and join the ED investigation within the stated time period.
Category : Chartered Accountant | Comments : 0 | Hits : 567
Comments