ED charges Raj Kundra in ₹150 crore Bitcoin scam
What's the story
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has charged Shilpa Shetty Kundra's husband, actor and businessman Raj Kundra, in a money laundering case linked to a Bitcoin scam. The agency's chargesheet, submitted to a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court, alleges that Kundra holds beneficial ownership of 285 Bitcoins worth ₹150.47 crore. These were allegedly received from late crypto-scam mastermind Amit Bhardwaj.
Allegations
ED accuses Kundra of hiding evidence
The ED alleges Kundra has deliberately hidden important evidence, including Bitcoin wallet addresses, and failed to surrender the Bitcoins received from Bhardwaj. The agency claims he is still in possession of these proceeds of crime. It also accuses him of doing a "genuine transaction" with his wife at "far below market rate" to hide the source of funds obtained through criminal activities.
Charges
Agency claims Kundra's actions have obstructed the proceedings
The ED alleges that Kundra obstructed the PMLA proceedings by layering illicit funds and presenting them as legitimate assets. The money laundering case is based on FIRs filed by Maharashtra Police and Delhi Police against Variable Tech Private Limited, Mahendra Bhardwaj, Ajay, Vivek Bhardwaj, and Simpy Bhardwaj. The agency alleges these individuals were involved in a Ponzi scheme using Bitcoins for mining, with promised high returns for investors.
Disputed role
Chargesheet states Kundra claimed to be a mediator
The chargesheet states Kundra claimed to be a "mediator" in the transaction, but did not provide any evidence to support this. It further states that an agreement titled "Term Sheet" was signed between him and Mahendra. The chargesheet says, "He was indeed the recipient of bitcoins as a beneficial owner and not acted merely as a mediator."
Missing information
Wallet addresses were never provided by Kundra
Despite several chances since 2018, Kundra has failed to provide the wallet addresses where the 285 Bitcoins were transferred, according to the complaint. He said he couldn't provide the information because his iPhone X got damaged after his first statement. The ED sees this as a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence and hide proceeds of crime.