MPID court rejects to discharge accused who duped 3,000 investors of ₹100 cr

Judge Vikram R Jagdale said there was sufficient prima facie material in the chargesheet to proceed against Prabhu on charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust and violations of the MPID Act

MUMBAI:A special court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act on Friday rejected the discharge plea of Priya Prabhu, an accused in the alleged ₹100-crore Money-edge Group investment fraud in which around 3,000 investors were allegedly duped, according to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW).

MPID court rejects to discharge accused who duped 3,000 investors of ₹100 cr. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Judge Vikram R Jagdale said there was sufficient prima facie material in the chargesheet to proceed against Prabhu on charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust and violations of the MPID Act. The court said witness statements and documents suggested her active role in promoting and operating the scheme.

The case stems from an EOW probe into the alleged Money-edge Group investment scheme, in which investors were promised high returns before the scheme collapsed. The police have filed a chargesheet against several accused in the case.

In her plea, Prabhu had sought discharge claiming she was not associated with the financial establishments involved and had neither launched nor implemented the scheme. Her lawyer argued that she was “neither employee nor office bearer” of the entities and that provisions of the MPID Act apply only to those responsible for running the financial establishment. She claimed that she too was an investor and had approached police with information and documents relating to investments during the probe.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution told the court that the investigation showed Prabhu was a partner in the Money-edge Group and had introduced investors to the scheme. Prosecutors said she had distributed investment documents, including pamphlets carrying her signature, and had also purchased property using proceeds of the alleged fraud.

After examining the FIR, witness statements and other material in the chargesheet, the court noted that several investors had stated that Prabhu and her co-accused explained the scheme and persuaded them to invest. “It appears that applicant is one of the partners, office bearers, and Treasurer of Money-edge Group and was actively managing the affairs of above establishment and also implementing Gold Yash Scheme,” the court observed.

The court also noted that Prabhu was a signatory to the leave-and-licence agreement for the group’s office and had issued investment certificates to investors as a branch officer linked to cooperative societies associated with the scheme.

According to the order, investors had put money into the scheme based on assurances given by the accused, and the record showed that the accused had acted “in furtherance of common intention to cheat the informant and others”.

Holding that there was enough material at this stage to proceed with the trial, the court rejected Prabhu’s discharge plea and concluded that there was prima facie evidence attracting offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust as well as provisions of the MPID Act.