Cryptocurrency Poses Serious Threat To National Economy: Delhi High Court Denies Bail In ₹50 Crore Crypto Fraud Case
The case involves a ₹50 crore crypto fraud where the accused allegedly lured investors with false promises of 20–30% returns.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man accused of orchestrating a large-scale cryptocurrency fraud, observing that dealing in digital currency poses a serious risk to India’s economy by converting legitimate money into an untraceable and unregulated financial system.
A bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia, while rejecting the bail application held, “For, economic offences, unlike most conventional bodily offences, are committed with elaborate planning and expertise. Especially, dealing in crypto currency has profound implications on economy of our country by way of dissolution of recognised money into the dark unknown and untraceable money.”
Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Ritesh Kumar Bahri appeared for the respondent.
Background
The case stems from an FIR lodged in 2020 under sections Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant or banker), Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Section 467 (forgery of valuable security), and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
It was alleged that accused along with others, lured numerous individuals to invest in his company under the pretext of generating high returns from cryptocurrency trading. The total amount invested by victims reportedly amounts to ₹50 crore. According to the prosecution, Verma had promised returns of 20% to 30%, painting a false picture of profits and continued to entice more investors even after the derecognition of cryptocurrency by Indian authorities.
Findings
The accused claimed that 22 investors had settled their disputes through the Mediation Centre at the Delhi High Court, and that he was actively repaying dues using post-dated cheques or cash. However, the Court dismissed these claims, it said, “It seems that the mediator(s) also simply recorded the Mediation Settlements and concluded the mediations without ensuring that the money was actually returned to the victims. I find substance in the argument of learned prosecutor that the accused/applicant used the mediation process as a tool to create artefact of bona fide, which led to his interim bail and thereafter he continued to ensure that the settlement process goes endlessly and he evergreens the interim protection.”
The Court took serious note of the scale of the fraud, pointing out that accused is allegedly involved in at least 13 other cases of a similar nature. The ongoing investigation has so far identified 61 defrauded investors, up from the initial count of 48, indicating the scam’s expanding scope.
It concluded that given the gravity of the charges, the multi-victim nature of the scam, and the accused’s past criminal conduct, he does not deserve bail at this stage.
Cause Title: Umesh Verma v. State, [2025:DHC:5548]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, Advocates Varun Gaur, Vishakha Gupta and Shubham Arora
Respondent: Advocates Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Divya Yadav and Archit Kaushik
Click here to read/download Order
