Court refuses to discharge brothers in ₹84 crore ‘ATC coins’ case

Additional sessions judge N.G. Shukla rejected the discharge pleas of Subhashchand Ramratan Jewria and Chirag Ramratan Jewria, observing that while virtual currencies are not banned in India, the case concerns alleged cheating of investors rather than the legality of crypto transactions

Mumbai: Holding that the legality of cryptocurrency trading cannot be used as a shield for fraudulent conduct, a special court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act has refused to discharge two brothers accused in an alleged ₹84 crore investment scam linked to “ATC coins,” ruling that there is sufficient material to proceed to trial.

Court refuses to discharge brothers in ₹84 crore ‘ATC coins’ case

Additional sessions judge N.G. Shukla rejected the discharge pleas of Subhashchand Ramratan Jewria and Chirag Ramratan Jewria, observing that while virtual currencies are not banned in India, the case concerns alleged cheating of investors rather than the legality of crypto transactions.

“The issue is not merely dealing in virtual currencies, but whether depositors were deceived through false assurances,” the court noted, adding that the material on record indicates inducement and misrepresentation.

According to the prosecution, the accused—directors of Jewria Service Club India Pvt Ltd—promoted an investment scheme linked to UK-based ATC Coin Ltd, luring investors through online campaigns, videos and outreach programmes. They allegedly promised returns of up to 10% per month and claimed the coins could be converted into Bitcoin or used across major commercial platforms.

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has alleged that around ₹84 crore was collected from investors. However, the promised virtual currency was either not delivered or remained unusable, while funds were allegedly diverted to other entities and personal accounts. Claims of tie-ups with companies such as Flipkart and Patanjali were also found to be false, the court noted.

Rejecting the defence argument that cryptocurrency operates in a regulatory grey area, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Internet and Mobile Association of India vs Reserve Bank of India, reiterating that while crypto trading is not illegal, it does not legitimise fraudulent activity.

At the discharge stage, the court found prima facie evidence in witness statements that investors either did not receive the coins or could not use them as promised. It also noted material suggesting that investor funds were not used to purchase virtual currency as claimed.

The defence contended that most investors had been repaid and that only a limited number of statements had been recorded. The court, however, held that repayments made after the FIR was registered cannot be grounds for discharge and may only be considered at trial.

Terming the application “devoid of merit,” the court concluded that the threshold for framing charges had been met and dismissed the plea, paving the way for trial under relevant provisions of the IPC and the MPID Act.