Latest news with #MaharashtraProtectionofInterestofDepositors(inFinancialEstablishments
NDTV
12-06-2025
- Business
- NDTV
Thane Investment Firm Accused Of Cheating 78 Investors Of Rs 3.7 Crore
Thane: Thane police have registered a case against eight individuals associated with an investment firm for allegedly cheating 78 investors of Rs 3.7 crore after promising them high returns, officials said on Thursday. The firm opened its office in Dombivli area of Maharashtra's Thane district some years back and began marketing various investment schemes which promised lucrative interest rates. The accused, including partners and employees of the firm, lured people to invest money for good returns, an official The victims invested money in the firm's schemes between 2021 and 2022. "The accused issued certificates to investors, acknowledging their investments and promising attractive returns. However, after receiving the funds, they failed to deliver the agreed interest and also did not return the principal amount to the investors," the official said. One of the 78 victims subsequently lodged a police complaint on behalf of the group. The police on Tuesday registered an FIR against eight persons associated with the firm under sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and provisions of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, the official said. "We are currently probing the case. As of now, no arrest has been made, but all the accused have been identified and we are verifying the financial trail. Action will be taken as per law once we complete the preliminary inquiry," the official added.
Time of India
31-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Court: Property buyers can't be added as accused in investment fraud case
Mumbai: A special MPID court recently ruled against adding as accused two persons who purchased a property for Rs 2.6 crore from two accused in an investment fraud case involving Cosmo Investment and Athena Investment. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court held that those whose involvement is not direct in managing the fraudulent financial establishments cannot be added as accused. "Even if the submission that respondent numbers 10 and 11 (purchasers) acted as agents of respondent numbers 1-7 (accused), they cannot be added as accused. Respondent numbers 10 and 11 are not directors of the firms. They are not persons responsible for the business or management of the business. The role of respondent numbers 10 and 11 is only that they paid Rs 2.60 crore out of the consideration amount to 34 investors on the instruction of respondent numbers 1 and 3. Thus, even if they are considered as agents, they cannot be added as accused," Judge N G Shukla said. The plea was filed by one of the investors, Arvind Solanki (67), against the existing accused in the fraud case—Juhu residents Amit Masalia, Prakash Masalia, Dina Masalia, Payal Masalia and Mayank Doshi, Cosmo Investment and Athena Investment, as well as the property purchasers Jitendra Shah and Kirti Shah. Solanki claimed the transaction was fraudulent. Amit, Prakash, Dina, Payal and Doshi were involved in the two firms. They are accused of defrauding 42 investors by failing to return substantial investments along with promised lumpsum benefits and interest. The victims invested around Rs 22.37 crore. A case under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act was filed in 2018. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Names of 15 depositors and their investments were revealed after the chargesheet was filed. During their anticipatory bail proceedings, the accused returned the invested amount to the original complainant and her relatives, leading to the grant of their bail. At that time, a property previously attached by the investigating officer was also released. This property is an office space in Andheri West. Shortly after, Amit and Prakash sold it for Rs 2.75 crore. After an initial payment of Rs 15 lakh, the remaining Rs 2.6 crore was paid directly to 34 investors, victims of the fraud. The advocate representing Solanki argued this property sale was a "mala fide transfer" aimed at circumventing asset attachment under the Act. It was contended the Shahs acted as agents for the original accused and committed fraud by selectively repaying certain investors, some of whom were not named in the original chargesheet. However, advocates representing the Shahs argued they legitimately purchased the property and fulfilled their payment obligations by settling debts with investors as instructed by original sellers.
