“Easy Money Is A Trap; If You Choose Greed, You Choose Risk”: Delhi High Court Warns Against Financial Frauds

The Delhi High Court has warned against the financial frauds, saying that easy money is a trap and if one chooses greed, he chooses risk.

The Court was deciding a Bail Application filed by a man, seeking directions for release of an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- along with the interest.

A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga remarked, “To sum up, it may sound brutal but seems fair: if you choose greed, you choose risk; and if you choose risk, you choose consequences. But such victims ought not to pretend they were duped by magic when they walked willingly into the illusion. So, to every dreamer chasing quick riches—it is a wake up call. Easy money is a trap. If the returns sound unbelievable, believe this instead: you are next in line to pay the price.”

The Bench also remarked that one cannot bet his money on wild promises and then run to the law crying ‘victim’ when the bet goes bad.

“If you had the courage to take the risk, you must have the spine to face the consequences. Greed is a silent crime against wisdom. It blinds people to the obvious, drives them into risky ventures, and then makes them demand sympathy when the tide turns. Fraudsters must be punished, yes—but should Courts become shelters for reckless risk-takers. The investor who demands 24% annual returns without security is not a saint wronged; he is a speculator who rolled the dice and lost”, it added.

Advocate Jinendra Jain represented the Petitioner while APP Sanjeev Sabharwal represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

As per the FIR, in June 2016, Mr. Soni was introduced by one Mr. Devki Nandan and one Mr. Kailash Kumar to one Mr. Krishan Kumar, who in turn introduced him to one Mr. Narender Singh, his wife one Mrs. Krishna Singh, and their sons; non-applicant/accused Mr. Yogesh Singh (Petitioner), and one Mr. Kunal Singh. The accused persons represented that the family of Mr. Narender Singh owned two highly profitable stone mines located at villages Ramal Vas and Manka Vas, District Dadri, Haryana, through their company M/s Kayden Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. They assured the Complainants that upon payment of Rs. 1.5 crores, they would pay monthly interest at 24% p.a. for six months, return the principal thereafter, and further pay 1% of the mines’ profits per month.

Believing these representations, the Complainants paid Rs. 1.5 crores by RTGS to the Petitioner from accounts of Kapil Soni, Mrs. Raj Bala, and Mr. Radhey Shyam Soni. Subsequently, the accused persons persuaded the Complainants to purchase 1.25% shareholding in Kayden Infra for Rs. 43,66,000/-, directing that the amounts be paid in the names of Mrs. Krishna Singh and M/s Ashali Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., another family company of Mr. Narender Singh. Allegedly, the accused neither paid the agreed interest nor returned the principal amount and instead issued purported share allotment details in Ashali Infra. He allegedly avoided the Complainants, failed to repay the amounts, and continued to make excuses.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “Having perused and considered the FIR, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR lack the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC. What is essentially a civil dispute concerning repayment of money and transfer of shares has been camouflaged as a criminal case.”

The Court noted that even after an inordinate delay of nearly six years, the investigation remains incomplete.

“If any incriminating material against the accused had truly been unearthed, the charge sheet would have been filed long ago. No plausible explanation has been offered for this delay, which strongly indicates that either evidence against the accused is lacking or is being artificially manufactured”, it added.

The Court said that continuing with such proceedings would constitute an abuse of the criminal process and a futile exercise, placing an unnecessary burden on an already overstrained judiciary.

“The prolonged and unexplained delay in completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet amounts to a clear infringement of the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra categorically held that the right to speedy trial is an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty. Unwarranted prolonged investigation causing inordinate delay in the case in hand is thus a contributory factor”, it further noted.

The Court, therefore, rejected the Complainant’s application for release of money deposited by the accused in bail proceedings with liberty to seek appropriate remedy, in civil law.

“Before parting, though I have finished my judgment as above and quashed the FIR in the preceding part, but there is another aspect of the matter which, invariably is causa causans leading to undesirable criminal consequences and not necessarily due to the mens rea and, that is - excessive greed. This court deems it appropriate to red flag this issue in the succeeding part, more as an obiter dictum rather than ration decidendi”, said the Court.

The Court was of the view that those who gamble with impractical promises must own their risks.

“People, lured by unrealistic returns, first willingly dive into financial traps and later cry foul running to seek State help. But what shakes the foundation of blind victimhood is, the excessive greed which comes with a price. The promise of 24 percent annual return on a loan, when bank deposits offer barely 1/3rd or 1/4th of that, should raise suspicion, not confidence. Yet, such offers continue to attract people like moths to a flame. Why? Because in their race for windfall gains, these investors conveniently ignore the basic principle of finance: higher returns mean higher risk. Is non servicing of debt ipso facto a crime? Accepting an answer in the affirmative would be fraught with danger”, it added.

The Court further said that in a country where debt recovery tribunals are already inundated with cases, every debtor would, by extension, also be branded a criminal and this is not to deny that some debtors may engage in acts of financial misconduct/siphoning off etc. that can amount to criminal offenses.

“Indubitably, the law must hold accountable those who deceive. What about the conscious choice of investors who ignored the warning bells in pursuit of quick wealth? An uncomfortable, but necessary reality is if you choose to chase extraordinary gains, you must be prepared for extraordinary losses. Greed is not just a personal flaw; it creates ripple effects. When investors pump money into unsustainable ventures, they inflate bubbles that harm genuine end-users and distort market equilibrium. And when the bubble bursts, they expect the law to paint them as victims, absolving them of all responsibility. The allure of easy money is a dangerous illusion”, it also observed.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court emphasised that a responsible society cannot endorse a culture where greed masquerades as innocence and investors who ignore prudence and succumb to unrealistic promises must understand that their choices carry consequences.

“The law must punish fraud, but it cannot shield people from the fallout of their own avarice. … Adding further to the debate, when you invest in fantasy, don‘t expect reality to show you mercy. Are these investors really as gullible as they claim? May be not. It could then rather be a façade of innocence worn by investors crying foul after losing money in schemes that promised them the moon. They knew exactly what they were signing up for i.e. unbelievably high returns of 24% annually or 2% every month. These are not returns; these are temptations. Like the complainants herein fell for. Let us call it what it is: a hunger for unearned wealth. When someone promises riches far beyond what the market offers, common sense should scream “scam.” But greed silences reason”, it remarked.

The Court concluded, “When you give unsecured loans for such outrageous returns, are you then as innocent an investor? Nay, perhaps a part gambler. And every gambler knows the rule of the game: when you win, you cheer; when you lose, you pay.”

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Application and quashed the FIR.

Cause Title- Yogesh Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6944)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Jinendra Jain, Bijay Lakshmi, M.N. Mishra, Krishna Sharma, Manoj Gautam, and Kashish Gupta.

Respondents: APP Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocates Bharat Gupta, and Tushar Rohmetra.

Click here to read/download the Judgment