The Kerala High Court directed the directors of Highrich Private Limited to file application for transfer of property frozen under Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money- laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The Highrich scam is now believed to be worth over Rs 3,141 crore. The Enforcement Directorate (ED), which is probing the money laundering angle, on Wednesday issued a lookout notice against managing director K D Prathapan and his wife Sreena, CEO of the company.
The investigation by Thrissur Cherpu police station revealed violations under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, and assets of the firm were attached. Areport submitted by Cherpu police to the 3rd Additional District Sessions Court says fraud involving the company could amount to Rs 1,630 crore, based on preliminary calculations. It indicated that not even a single complaint had been received against Highrich officials and that the company’s claim of having around 1.63 crore global customers was fictitious.
The company’s claim that it had a customer base of 1.63 crore was found to be false. In actuality, 1.63 crore IDs had been created through its platform. Highrich’s ‘Crypto’ and OTT platforms would also need to be investigated extensively and that would take time, it said. The company also claimed to have more than 12 lakh customers on its HR OTT platform, which seemed to have attracted a mere 10,000 views. Police also traced 20 bank accounts of the company. Presently, these accounts remain frozen on orders issued by the district collector.
A Single Bench of Justice TR Ravi submitted that “Since, the matter is already before the adjudicating authority, there will be a direction to the adjudicating authority to consider and pass orders within the period available under the Statue, that is, 180 days from the date of freezing. The petitioner shall file an application for permission for transfer of the property, which has been frozen, as provided under Section 17(1A). There will be a further direction to the authorised officer to consider the request submitted by the petitioner, restricting the order of freezing to the extent of the amount covered in the FIR, which has already been registered.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
