Daijiworld Media Network - Mumbai
Mumbai, Feb 20: A special court on Friday granted bail to businessman Raj Kundra, husband of actor Shilpa Shetty, in connection with the alleged Rs 150 crore Bitcoin ‘Ponzi’ scheme case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Kundra, one of 18 accused in the case, appeared before the special court after it took cognisance of the chargesheet filed last month. The court granted him bail on furnishing a surety of Rs 1 lakh and directed that he must seek prior permission before travelling abroad.
Speaking briefly to reporters outside the courtroom, Kundra said he had faith in the judiciary but refrained from making detailed comments. “My wife does not let me speak at home and my lawyer does not allow me to speak in court,” he remarked.
The court had earlier issued summons to Kundra and Dubai-based businessman Rajesh Satija after taking cognisance of the ED’s chargesheet. Both were directed to appear before the court on January 19. They were named as accused in a supplementary chargesheet filed in September last year. Kundra was not arrested during the investigation but was required to seek bail following the court’s cognisance.
According to the ED, Kundra allegedly received Rs 6.5 crore from alleged Gain Bitcoin scam mastermind Amit Bhardwaj. The agency claimed that the amount was converted into 285 Bitcoins for setting up a Bitcoin mining farm in Ukraine, purportedly to be received by an Israeli national.
The ED has further alleged that despite several opportunities since 2018, Kundra has not provided wallet addresses where the Bitcoins were allegedly transferred.
Opposing the agency’s claims, Kundra’s counsel Prashant Patil argued that the ED’s valuation method was legally untenable. He submitted that while the agency initially pegged the value of 285 Bitcoins in July 2017 at around USD 1 million (approximately Rs 6.6 crore), it later applied an April 16, 2024 valuation of nearly Rs 52 lakh per Bitcoin to arrive at a figure close to Rs 150 crore.
Patil contended that such “pick-and-choose valuation” without statutory backing was impermissible and that the relevant date for valuation should be July 2017, when the alleged proceeds were generated.
He further argued that even if the ED’s case was accepted at face value, the maximum attachable amount could only be Rs 6.6 crore, making the attachment of properties worth Rs 150 crore grossly disproportionate and arbitrary.
The ED opposed the bail plea, but the court granted relief to Kundra. He is now considering moving the High Court to challenge the summons issued in the matter.
Further proceedings in the case are awaited.