CBI charges two Chinese nationals in Rs 1,000 crore HPZ Token case

What the Record Shows

The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed a chargesheet in the HPZ Token case, a mobile application that the agency says collected money from the public on the promise of returns from cryptocurrency mining. According to the government's own account, the CBI filed the chargesheet on 10 December 2025 against 30 accused, comprising two Chinese nationals, Wan Jun and Li Anming, 27 other individuals, and three companies including Shigoo Technology Pvt Ltd. The CBI's chargesheet describes over Rs 1,000 crore siphoned through shell companies.

Running alongside the CBI case is a money-laundering investigation by the Enforcement Directorate before the Special PMLA Court at Dimapur, Nagaland. The ED's PMLA matter is quantified at approximately Rs 2,200 crore, a figure that measures the laundering case rather than the CBI's siphoning estimate, and the two numbers should be read separately.

This is an allegation-stage matter. No accused has been convicted. A CBI chargesheet and an ED prosecution complaint are accusations that remain to be tested at trial, and the individuals and entities named are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

How It Worked

Per the CBI, a mobile app marketed as HPZ Token invited the public to buy tokens whose proceeds were said to fund cryptocurrency-mining rigs, promising very high fixed returns. The agency alleges that no mining actually took place and that the promised yields were a device to draw in fresh money. The scheme gathered pace during and after the Covid-19 lockdown, a period the investigators note was marked by both high unemployment and a hunt for yield.

The CBI alleges the money collected was routed through a layered network of fintech companies, payment aggregators, online retail fronts, video-game firms and crypto wallets, a structure designed to obscure where the funds came from and where they went. The ED describes the operation as one node of a larger foreign-run cybercrime network that also ran predatory loan apps and fake job platforms. The two Chinese nationals, the CBI says, came to India to set up the company and its infrastructure and then operated it remotely from abroad; the agency's account refers to them as fugitives.

The procedural history spans both agencies. Six persons were arrested during the initial CBI action, and the agency says the 27 Indian accused were identified through investigation before the December 2025 chargesheet. On the money-laundering track, the ED has filed a second supplementary prosecution complaint before the Special PMLA Court, Dimapur, in April 2026, taking the cumulative count in the PMLA matter to 437 persons and entities across three filings, and has attached and frozen assets across multiple actions, including an earlier seizure of about Rs 46 crore. Every figure and characterisation here is an allegation by an investigating agency, not a finding of a court.

Who Lost Money

The people who put money into HPZ Token were, on the investigators' account, thousands of ordinary retail app users spread across India. They were recruited largely during the pandemic, when job losses and thin savings made a promise of high, fixed returns from an unfamiliar but plausible-sounding technology especially attractive.

The scale is described differently by the two agencies because they are measuring different things. The CBI's chargesheet puts the sum siphoned through shell companies at over Rs 1,000 crore, while the ED's money-laundering case is quantified at approximately Rs 2,200 crore. Neither figure represents money that has been returned to users.

Recovery so far is a small fraction of what is alleged to have been collected. The ED reports seizing and freezing assets, including an earlier seizure of about Rs 46 crore, but such attachments are investigation-stage steps that require confirmation before any distribution, and a return of money to affected app users, if it happens at all, would come only after the proceedings run their course. Savers weighing a promised fixed return against its plausibility can test the arithmetic with Oquilia's lump-sum returns calculator.

Where It Stands Now

As of now, the matter is pre-conviction on both tracks. The CBI's chargesheet of 10 December 2025 is before the court, and the ED's second supplementary prosecution complaint of April 2026 is before the Special PMLA Court at Dimapur; charges are yet to be brought to trial in either forum. The two Chinese nationals are reported to be outside the country and have not been heard, which means the allegations against them remain wholly untested.

One figure needs care. The ED's 437-accused number counts persons and entities together and is a cumulative total across three filings; it is not a charge against 437 individuals, and the CBI's own chargesheet names 30 accused of which three are companies. The asset attachments made by the ED are provisional and require confirmation under the PMLA before they become final.

A chargesheet and a prosecution complaint contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. No court has ruled on whether the mining was fictitious or whether the money moved as the agencies allege.

What It Means

The HPZ Token matter is a clean illustration of a recurring digital-era pattern: an opaque but fashionable technology, in this case crypto mining, used as the story that makes an impossible return sound credible. Crypto mining does not produce a guaranteed fixed yield, and any app that promises one is describing something the underlying activity cannot deliver.

For an individual, the practical protection is to treat an app-based investment product with the same scrutiny as any other. Virtual digital assets are not a regulated deposit in India, there is no deposit insurance behind such a scheme, and a promised fixed return from a volatile or non-existent activity is the clearest possible warning sign. The registration status of a genuine financial intermediary can be checked on the RBI and SEBI websites, and a payment app's legitimacy can be verified before any money is transferred. The broader pattern across these cases is consistent: headline collection figures dwarf what is ever recovered. You can follow related matters through Oquilia's enforcement archive, including the Falcon Invoice Discounting case and the Fashion Gold deposit case in Kerala.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A CBI chargesheet and an ED prosecution complaint contain allegations, not findings of guilt. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues before the trial court. There has been no conviction in this matter.

Does the figure of 437 accused mean 437 people were charged?

No. The 437 figure in the ED's PMLA matter counts persons and entities together, and it is a cumulative total across three separate filings, not a single charge against 437 individuals. The CBI's own December 2025 chargesheet names 30 accused, of which three are companies.

What happened to the money collected?

The CBI alleges over Rs 1,000 crore was siphoned through shell companies, while the ED's PMLA case is quantified at about Rs 2,200 crore; the two figures measure different things. The ED reports seizing and freezing assets, including an earlier seizure of about Rs 46 crore, which is a small fraction of the sums alleged.

Where are the two Chinese nationals named by the CBI?

The CBI names Wan Jun and Li Anming as accused and says they came to India to set up the company and infrastructure before operating it remotely from abroad. They are reported to be outside the country and have not been heard by the court, so the allegations against them are untested.

Where can I read the official record?

The government's own account of the CBI chargesheet, filed on 10 December 2025 against 30 accused including two Chinese nationals and Shigoo Technology Pvt Ltd, is published on the All India Radio news portal and is linked below.

This report is based on the Government of India account of the CBI chargesheet in the HPZ Token case and the public enforcement record reviewed on 1 August 2026.