Dani Data gaming app: FIRs on court record, ED files Ahmedabad complaint

What the Record Shows

An online application distributed as Dani Data, marketed as a gaming and betting platform, sits at the centre of a cluster of criminal cases across more than one Indian state, and the Enforcement Directorate's Ahmedabad zone has, as the agency has said, taken the matter into money-laundering territory. The verifiable spine of the case is on the court record: police first-information reports naming the app, and High Court orders that describe how it took deposits.

The Gujarat High Court, in an order dated 5 October 2023, recorded that in FIR C.R. No. 11195062220004 of 2022 registered at the Cyber-Crime Police Station, Banaskantha, "money was deposited through Dani-Data app". The offences charged in that FIR, as the court noted, included Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 471, 114 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code together with Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act. Separately, the Allahabad High Court, in an order dated 15 December 2022 in Case Crime No. 0389 of 2022 registered at Police Station Sikandra, Agra, recorded that an informant "had deposited Rs.1000/- in online gaming application named as Dani Data App" on 1 June 2022 and that the app "stopped working" days later, with charges under Section 420 IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

On the money-laundering side, the ED is reported to have filed a prosecution complaint before the Special PMLA Court at Ahmedabad in August 2025 against the promoters of the app, said to include a Chinese national as the principal, and to have frozen about Rs 20 crore in linked bank accounts. That complaint is an agency's set of allegations placed before a court; no cognizance ruling or conviction has been recorded, and the accused are presumed innocent.

How It Worked

The mechanism, as the FIRs and court orders describe it, is a deposit scheme wearing the clothes of a game. The Allahabad High Court's order captures the ordinary user's experience in a single line: a person deposited a small sum, in that instance Rs 1,000 through a payment app, into what was presented as an online gaming application, and within days the application "stopped working". That sequence, deposit followed by the platform going dark, is the core of the complaints on record.

The Gujarat proceedings show the other side of the operation, the recruitment layer. The Gujarat High Court recorded that the applicant before it "was receiving commission to the tune of Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/-" in connection with accounts through which money moved via the Dani-Data app, which points, on the prosecution's case, to a referral structure in which intermediaries were paid to bring deposits in and to lend their documents to the opening of accounts. The IPC sections invoked, including cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust, and the IT Act provisions on impersonation and cheating by personation using a computer resource, describe the character of the allegations the police have made.

The ED's reported account adds the scale and the velocity. According to the agency's case as reported, the application promised a guaranteed return of 0.75 per cent per game, was distributed through the Google Play Store and through WhatsApp referral groups, and ran on multi-level referral chains that compressed collection into days rather than months. The Google Play listing, on this account, supplied the legitimacy signal a bare website could not, a recurring feature of the colour-prediction and mini-game category. The ED alleges the collections were consolidated and layered before the platform was withdrawn, which is the basis on which it has brought the matter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Each of these characterisations is an allegation the courts have yet to test on evidence.

Who Lost Money

The people affected, on the record, are ordinary retail depositors putting in small sums, the Rs 1,000 recorded in the Agra FIR being illustrative of the ticket size. The ED has estimated that roughly Rs 1,400 crore was collected from about 1,200 identified investors, largely in Gujarat, within a nine-day window. That figure is the agency's collection estimate, not a loss adjudicated by any court, and it should be read as the ED's claim about the sums that passed through the scheme rather than as an established finding.

The gap between that estimate and what has been secured is stark. The ED is reported to have frozen about Rs 20 crore in linked accounts, a small fraction of the sum it says was collected, which is typical of high-velocity app schemes where money is fanned out and moved on before enforcement begins. Frozen balances are not the same as recoveries returned to depositors; they remain within the legal process pending the outcome of the prosecution and any attachment and restitution steps.

There is no published record of a completed distribution to the app's users. Depositors who believe they were affected are, in practical terms, waiting on the criminal cases and the money-laundering proceeding to run their course, with recovery depending on what assets can be traced and confirmed for attachment.

Where It Stands Now

The current position, on the records reviewed for this report, is a set of live criminal cases and a money-laundering complaint that has not yet reached trial. The Gujarat and Allahabad High Court orders cited here granted bail to individual applicants and do not decide the guilt of anyone; they confirm that FIRs naming the Dani Data app exist and describe how the app is alleged to have operated. The ED's prosecution complaint at Ahmedabad, as reported in August 2025, awaits the court taking cognizance, after which framing of charges and trial would follow.

No conviction has been recorded against any promoter or intermediary in this matter. Where a Chinese national is named as the principal, that too is an allegation in the agency's complaint and not a proven fact.

A chargesheet or prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The seizure and collection figures are the agencies' own claims, and the modus described above is drawn from FIRs and pleadings that a trial court has yet to weigh.

What It Means

The instructive feature of this matter is distribution, not sophistication. On the agencies' account, an app promising a fixed per-game return reached its depositors through an app-store listing and WhatsApp referral chains, and the store listing did much of the work of persuasion. A guaranteed 0.75 per cent per game is, in plain terms, a promise no lawful market instrument makes, and the presence of an app on a mainstream store is not a licence, a registration, or any assurance that a scheme is regulated.

The practical takeaway is to separate the wrapper from the substance. Before depositing into any platform that offers returns, a reader can check whether the operator is a regulated intermediary on the relevant regulator's public register, treat a fixed or guaranteed per-game or per-day return as a red flag rather than a feature, and be wary of schemes whose growth depends on recruiting others. For a sense of what a lump sum actually does inside a transparent, regulated instrument, our lumpsum investment calculator shows the arithmetic without the platform risk on display here. The broader run of enforcement matters is collected at Oquilia's enforcement coverage, and readers may find our report on the E-Nuggets gaming app case a close companion, since it turns on the same deposit-then-vanish pattern in a different app.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A prosecution complaint or a chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt. The promoters and intermediaries named, including the person the ED describes as a Chinese national principal, are accused and are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court. The ED's investigation and the underlying police cases are still under way.

What did the courts actually record about the Dani Data app?

The Gujarat High Court recorded on 5 October 2023 that money was deposited through the Dani-Data app and that an intermediary received commission of Rs 2,000 to Rs 2,500, in an FIR charging cheating, forgery and related offences. The Allahabad High Court recorded on 15 December 2022 that an informant deposited Rs 1,000 into the app, which then stopped working.

Is the Rs 1,400 crore figure proven?

No. About Rs 1,400 crore collected from roughly 1,200 investors in nine days is the Enforcement Directorate's collection estimate as reported, not a loss adjudicated by a court. It describes the sums the agency says passed through the scheme, and it remains to be tested in the proceedings.

Have depositors got their money back?

There is no published record of a completed distribution to users. The ED is reported to have frozen about Rs 20 crore in linked accounts, a fraction of the sum it says was collected. Frozen assets remain within the legal process; recovery depends on the outcome of the cases and on what can be traced and attached.

How do I check whether an app or scheme is registered?

Verify the operator against the relevant regulator's public register before depositing, for example SEBI's list of registered intermediaries or the Reserve Bank of India's list of authorised entities. Presence on an app store is a distribution channel, not a registration, and a guaranteed per-game return is a warning sign.

Where can I read the official record?

The Gujarat High Court and Allahabad High Court orders referencing the Dani Data app are published on Indian Kanoon and are linked below.

This report is based on the Gujarat High Court order dated 5 October 2023 and the Allahabad High Court order dated 15 December 2022 referencing the Dani Data app, together with the Enforcement Directorate's reported prosecution complaint before the Special PMLA Court, Ahmedabad, reviewed on 2 August 2026.