Court rejects‘nominal role’ claim in ₹90-cr deposit fraud

According to the prosecution, the company and its directors lured investors with promises of high returns, mobilised nearly ₹90 crore, and later defaulted, allegedly diverting funds and acquiring assets

MUMBAI: A designated court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) has refused to discharge a director of Temple Rose Real Estate Pvt Ltd in an alleged ₹90-crore investment fraud involving around 3,000 depositors, ruling that the evidence on record is enough to proceed to trial.

Court rejects‘nominal role’ claim in ₹90-cr deposit fraud

According to the prosecution, the company and its directors lured investors with promises of high returns, mobilised nearly ₹90 crore, and later defaulted, allegedly diverting funds and acquiring assets.

Additional Sessions Judge N.G. Shukla on Thursday dismissed the discharge plea filed by Markas Yohan Thorat, who claimed he was only a nominal director with a limited role in land-related work and no involvement in financial transactions.

The court noted that Thorat served as a director between 2009 and 2016, when the alleged fraud took place, and said his resignation before the registration of FIR in 2017 does not shield him from prosecution.

At this stage, the judge said, the defence that he was merely a “nominal director” cannot be accepted, especially when witness statements suggest he introduced investment schemes to depositors.

The court also pointed to financial records showing Thorat received about ₹2.16 crore as salary, commission and dividends, observing that such payments were inconsistent with his claim of limited land-related work.

The court also relied on search documents, including a general power of attorney, sale deeds and transaction papers, suggesting that Thorat was actively involved in the company’s business, including acquisition of properties. It further noted that some properties were allegedly purchased in the names of his family members using investor funds, reinforcing the prosecution’s case of misappropriation.

The Economic Offences Wing opposed Thorat’s discharge plea, arguing that the material creates a “grave suspicion” against him, which is enough to frame charges.

While Thorat contended that he held just a 0.49% stake and that no investor directly accused him, the court said such arguments can only be tested during trial.

Holding that a prima facie case exists based on the material on record, the court dismissed the application, clearing the way for framing of charges and for the trial to proceed.