AN INDIAN court has held that there is sufficient prima facie material to proceed against businessman Raj Kundra under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in an alleged bitcoin scam and issued him a summons.
Special judge for PMLA cases RB Rote on Monday issued summons to Kundra and Dubai-based businessman Rajesh Satija, directing them to appear before the court on January 19.
The two were named as accused in a supplementary charge sheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in September last year.
In a reasoned order made available on Wednesday, the court said that statements of witnesses, the prosecution complaint (charge sheet) and the record of the case “prima-facie show” that Kundra and Satija were involved in offences punishable under the PMLA.
“There is sufficient material to proceed against accused Nos 17 and 18 (Kundra and Satija)....The ED has made out a prima-facie case to take cognizance...and issue process against them,” the court said.
The ED alleged that Kundra received 285 Bitcoins (around £12.4 million) from the “mastermind” and promoter of the Gain Bitcoin Ponzi “scam”, Amit Bhardwaj, for setting up a Bitcoin mining farm in Ukraine.
Since the deal did not materialise, Kundra is still in possession of the 285 Bitcoins, presently valued at more than Rs 150 crore, the agency claimed.
According to the charge sheet, Kundra claimed that he acted as a mediator in the transaction but did not provide “any underlying documentary evidence to prove the same”.
It said that the agreement titled “Term Sheet” was signed between Kundra and Mahendra Bhardwaj.
“Thus, it can be safely concluded that the agreement was actually between Raj Kundra and Amit Bhardwaj (his father Mahender Bhardwaj) and the argument given by Kundra that he acted as a mere mediator is not tenable,” the charge sheet said.
The ED further said that Kundra’s recollection of the exact number of Bitcoins received in five specific tranches more than seven years after the transactions “solidifies the fact that he was indeed the recipient of Bitcoins as a beneficial owner and not acted merely as a mediator”.
The agency also alleged that despite several opportunities since 2018, Kundra failed to provide the wallet addresses where the 285 Bitcoins were transferred.
Kundra cited damage to his iPhone X as the reason for the missing information, which the ED said was a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence and conceal the proceeds of crime.
(With inputs from agencies)
