A Mumbai special court operating under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has issued a summons to businessman Raj Kundra after taking notice of the Enforcement Directorate’s chargesheet against him in relation to an alleged Bitcoin scam. Amit Bhardwaj, the alleged architect of the multi-crore Gain Bitcoin Ponzi fraud, allegedly sent Kundra 285 Bitcoins for a planned mining project in Ukraine. An important development in the money-laundering investigation that has been going on for a number of years is that the court has ordered Kundra to appear before it on January 19.
Along with Kundra, the PMLA court has also issued summons to Dubai-based businessman Rajesh Satija, who too has been named as an accused in the same matter. Both have been added in a supplementary chargesheet filed by the ED in September last year, expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the initial set of accused. The development places fresh legal scrutiny on Kundra, who has previously faced controversies but now finds himself formally summoned in a high-profile financial crime probe.
ED Alleges 285 Bitcoins Received For Ukraine Mining Deal:
The Enforcement Directorate claims that Amit Bhardwaj, the purported mastermind and promoter of the Gain Bitcoin Ponzi “scam,” gave Raj Kundra 285 Bitcoins. These Bitcoins were allegedly donated to Kundra in order to establish a Bitcoin mining farm in Ukraine; however, this project ultimately failed. The ED has asserted that Kundra is still in possession of these 285 Bitcoins, whose estimated present worth exceeds Rs 150 crore, even after the proposed trade fell through.
The agency’s case is that the Bitcoins represent proceeds of crime emanating from the fraudulent Gain Bitcoin scheme and that Kundra’s alleged continued possession of them makes him liable under the provisions of the PMLA. The chargesheet records ED’s assertion that these assets are linked to a large-scale crypto Ponzi operation that duped numerous investors under the promise of high returns from Bitcoin investments and mining. The focus on the Ukraine mining proposal is central to the ED’s narrative of how digital assets from the scam were allegedly routed and parked.
Dispute Over Kundra’s Role: Mediator Or Beneficial Owner?
In his statements to the ED, Raj Kundra has reportedly claimed that he was only acting as a mediator in the transaction involving the 285 Bitcoins. However, the ED’s supplementary chargesheet disputes this stand, stating that he has not produced any underlying documentary evidence to substantiate the claim that he was merely a go-between. Instead, the chargesheet points to an agreement titled “Term Sheet” which, according to the agency, was entered into between Kundra and Mahendra (Mahender) Bhardwaj, father of Amit Bhardwaj.
The ED has argued that, reading the material as a whole, it is clear that the agreement was effectively between Kundra and Amit Bhardwaj (through his father), and that Kundra’s argument of being a “mere mediator” is not tenable. The agency further notes that Kundra remembered the exact number of Bitcoins received, as well as the fact that they came in five specific tranches, despite the transactions having taken place more than seven years ago. For the ED, this detailed recollection “solidifies” the conclusion that he was the actual recipient and beneficial owner of the Bitcoins, rather than someone facilitating a transaction for others.
ED Flags Non‑Disclosure Of Wallet Details, Alleged Destruction Of Evidence:
Another key pillar of the ED’s case is Kundra’s alleged failure to share the crypto wallet details related to the 285 Bitcoins. The agency has claimed in the chargesheet that, despite being given multiple opportunities since 2018, Kundra has consistently not provided the wallet addresses to which these Bitcoins were transferred. This non-disclosure is seen by the ED as a serious obstacle to tracing the digital trail of the alleged proceeds of crime.
Kundra is said to have informed investigators that he couldn’t provide the wallet information because his iPhone X, which contained the essential information, was damaged shortly after his initial statement was taken. The ED has viewed this explanation with mistrust, seeing the purported phone damage as an intentional attempt to destroy potential evidence and conceal the location of the Bitcoins in question. In its chargesheet, the agency described this behavior as an attempt to hide and keep the proceeds of crime, strengthening its money-laundering claims under PMLA.
Summons Mark Next Legal Step In High‑Profile Bitcoin Case:
With the PMLA court formally taking cognizance of the ED’s supplementary chargesheet and issuing summons, the case now moves into a more active judicial phase for Raj Kundra and co-accused Rajesh Satija. Both have been directed to appear before the special court on January 19, where the next course of legal proceedings will be determined. The move reflects the court’s satisfaction that there is sufficient material on record to proceed further on the basis of the ED’s findings so far.
The Gain Bitcoin case has been among the most prominent crypto-related scams to draw sustained attention from investigative agencies, with the alleged use of Bitcoin and mining projects forming the core of the probe. The ED’s focus on tracing digital assets, establishing beneficial ownership, and examining alleged concealment of wallet details underlines how virtual currencies are increasingly under the scanner in money-laundering cases. For Kundra, the latest summons add another legal challenge, as the court begins to weigh ED’s allegations over his claimed role and the missing Bitcoins said to be worth over Rs 150 crore.
