The special MPID court has refused to grant discharge to Shivangi Mehta, who, along with her husband Ashesh Mehta, was booked for cheating around 800 investors to the tune of Rs 300 crore. The court observed that Shivangi was part of the business administration and, thus, liable to be prosecuted.
Shivangi and her husband Ashesh were arrested by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police in December 2023. Shivangi had sought discharge, claiming that she had no role to play in the scam.
The prosecution, however, claimed that Ashesh, the proprietor of Bliss Consultant, accepted money from various depositors to invest in share market trading. Whatever profit he made at the end of the month was to be divided, with 70% being distributed among the investors and 30% retained by him.
Bliss Consultant had opened a mobile app in the name of DIFM, where investors were asked to log in and become members of the company. It was alleged that Ashesh induced investors to invest in Bliss Consultant through the DIFM app, promising returns of 3%-4% per month. His wife, Shivangi, was allegedly assisting him and was responsible for the administrative side of the business.
In her defense, Shivangi claimed that she was not engaged in the acceptance of deposits from investors. According to the charge sheet, an amount of Rs 65.91 lakh was transferred to her account as returns on her investment of Rs 18 lakh made in 2018-19. She claimed that she had duly paid TDS and income tax on the profits from her investment. Beyond this, she had not received any other amount. Her lawyer argued that this demonstrated the legitimacy of her financial dealings.
It was further contended that M/s. Bliss Consultant is a proprietary concern owned by Shivangi’s husband, and her involvement was limited to back-office support.
The court, after hearing both sides, observed that “since the money of the depositors was transferred to the bank account of the applicant and as she operates and administers Bliss Consultants, the role and material against the applicant are enough to prosecute her under the MPID Act.”
“She was responsible for the management of the business and affairs of Bliss Consultants. The applicant was instrumental in assisting her husband in running Bliss Consultants,” the court said, adding that a prima facie role is made out against her to prosecute her in the instant crime. Hence, the court rejected her plea for discharge.
