Raj Kundra Bitcoin Scam: ED Files Chargesheet Against Businessman
The Enforcement Directorate has filed a chargesheet against businessman Raj Kundra in a bitcoin ‘scam’ stating that he is in possession of 285 Bitcoins, currently valued at Rs 150.47 crore. ED further added that he was not only an owner but also a beneficiary in the transactions and not just a ‘mediator’ as he claimed.
Background of the Case
The bitcoins were received from late crypto-scam mastermind Amit Bhardwaj. The chargesheet was recently filed before a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court. Kundra has deliberately concealed crucial evidence, including the Bitcoin wallet addresses etc and failed to surrender the Bitcoins received from Bhardwaj, it said.
Investigation and Findings
The probe agency contended that Kundra continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said proceeds of crime (Bitcoins). Further, the ED said he did a ‘genuine transaction’ with his actor wife Shilpa Shetty at ‘far below market rate’ to disguise the origin of such funds obtained by commission of criminal activities.
Thus, he tried to frustrate the proceeding under PMLA by layering the proceeds of crime and projected the same as untainted, the ED claimed in the chargesheet. The money-laundering case stems from FIRs lodged by Maharashtra police and Delhi police against a company named Variable Tech Private Limited, late Amit Bhardwaj, Ajay Bhardwaj, Vivek Bhardwaj, Simpy Bhardwaj and Mahender Bhardwaj.
How the Scam Worked
As per the ED, Bitcoins were supposed to be utilised for mining and investors were supposed to get huge returns in crypto assets, but the promoters ‘cheated’ them and have been concealing the ‘ill-gotten’ Bitcoins in obscure online wallets. Kundra, the agency alleged, received 285 Bitcoins from the ‘mastermind’ and promoter of Gain Bitcoin Ponzi ‘scam’ Amit Bhardwaj for setting up a Bitcoin mining farm in Ukraine.
Current Status of the Case
Since the deal did not materialise, Kundra is still in possession of 285 Bitcoins presently valued at more than Rs 150 crore, the ED claimed. The chargesheet stated that Kundra claimed to have acted as a mediator in the said transaction but didn’t provide ‘any underlying documentary evidence to prove the same’.
On the contrary, the agreement titled ‘Term Sheet’ was signed between him and Mahendra Bhardwaj, it said. ‘Thus, it can be safely concluded that the agreement was actually between Raj Kundra and Amit Bhardwaj (his father Mahender Bhardwaj) and the argument given by Kundra that he acted as a mere mediator is not tenable,’ the chargesheet said.
Implications for Indian Investors
The fact that Kundra remembers the exact number of Bitcoins received in five specific tranches for more than seven years since the transactions took place ‘solidifies the fact that he was indeed the recipient of Bitcoins as a beneficial owner and not acted merely as a mediator’, the chargesheet said. Despite multiple opportunities since 2018, Kundra has consistently failed to provide the wallet addresses where the 285 Bitcoins were transferred, the complaint said.
He cited damage to his iPhone X soon after his initial statement as the reason for the missing information, which the ED viewed as a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence and conceal the proceeds of crime. Besides Kundra, the other person named in the chargesheet is businessman Rajesh Satija.
This case highlights the importance of regulatory oversight in the cryptocurrency market and the need for investors to be cautious when dealing with digital assets. As the Indian government continues to grapple with the regulation of cryptocurrencies, cases like this serve as a reminder of the risks involved in this space.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ED’s chargesheet against Raj Kundra is a significant development in the bitcoin scam case. The allegations against Kundra and others involved in the case are serious and highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in the cryptocurrency market. As the case progresses, it will be important to monitor the developments and their implications for the Indian cryptocurrency market.