ED attaches 94 accounts in HPZ Token app case under PMLA

The Enforcement Directorate has provisionally attached 94 bank accounts holding about Rs 10.24 crore in the HPZ Token investment matter, deepening a money-laundering case that its own release describes as already under trial.

What the Record Shows

The Enforcement Directorate's Dimapur Sub Zonal Office provisionally attached 94 bank accounts holding approximately Rs 10.24 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in connection with the HPZ Token investment matter, per its press release dated 17 March 2026. The agency describes the accounts as mule accounts identified during its investigation into the app.

According to the release, this attachment takes the cumulative sum frozen in the case past Rs 662 crore, against total proceeds of crime the ED identifies at around Rs 2,200 crore. The action, the agency says, forms part of its continuing work on large-scale, cyber-enabled financial frauds.

The ED states that it began its investigation on the basis of FIR No. 03/2021 dated 8 October 2021, registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Kohima, Nagaland under various sections of the Indian Penal Code against HPZ Token and others. Related matters, including FIR No. 0006/2021 dated 2 September 2021 registered by the CID Police Station, Ulubari, Guwahati, and RC2212022E0022 dated 8 June 2022 registered by the CBI, EO-III, Delhi, were subsequently taken up under the PMLA.

The release names Bhupesh Arora as a key accused, along with his father Gulshan Arora and associates. A prosecution complaint has already been filed before the Special PMLA Court, Dimapur. No response from any of the named individuals is recorded in the ED release.

How It Worked

The ED alleges that HPZ Token was a large-scale investment fraud in which, per its release, unsuspecting investors across the country were induced to invest through the HPZ Token app on false promises of high returns. The app, in the wider public record of the case, was marketed around returns supposedly generated by bitcoin-mining machines.

Tracing the financial trail, the agency says, established the movement of funds from investors to the key accused, including Bhupesh Arora and his associates. According to the release, money was initially collected through multiple UPI IDs linked to mule accounts maintained with a private bank. The ED alleges the proceeds were then transferred to various shell companies, which received funds by misrepresenting and misusing payment-aggregator platforms such as PayU, Aggrepay and Easebuzz. Those platforms are described by the agency as services that were misused; the ED does not name them as accused.

The release states that a small portion of the funds was cycled back to investors to create a false sense of legitimacy and induce further deposits, while the balance was moved out through a network of mule accounts, hawala operators and foreign-exchange channels.

The ED further alleges a network of shell entities in which Bhupesh Arora, his father Gulshan Arora and associates are directors. The release identifies M/s Digi India Marketing (sole proprietor Indu Prabh Sharma, stated by the proprietor to be controlled by Bhupesh Arora), M/s Analytiq Business Ventures Private Limited (directors Akshay Dhawan and Vivek Kumar), M/s Freebie Solutions Private Limited (directors Bhupesh Arora and Gulshan Arora), M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt Ltd (director Aveg Sharma), M/s Zavion Trading Pvt Ltd (directors Prince Kumar and Deepak Kumar) and M/s Sark Enroll System Private Limited (director Thakur Dayapal Singh). The procedural sequence the record shows runs from the predicate FIRs of 2021 and the CBI RC of 2022 to a prosecution complaint and now this provisional attachment.

Who Lost Money

The ED describes the affected investors only as "unsuspecting investors across the country". Its 17 March 2026 release does not put a number on how many people invested through the app or state an aggregate that individual depositors lost, so any precise victim count would go beyond the record.

What the agency does quantify is the money it has traced and frozen. It identifies total proceeds of crime at around Rs 2,200 crore, of which it says more than Rs 662 crore has been attached so far, including the Rs 10.24 crore across the 94 accounts covered by this order. A provisional attachment freezes assets; it does not by itself return money to investors. Any distribution to those who lost money would follow later stages of the process, after the attachment is confirmed and the trial and any restitution proceedings run their course.

For now the gap between the sum alleged to have been raised and the sum recovered remains wide, and the release itself notes that further investigation is under way. Investors who believe they were affected would ordinarily pursue their claims through the criminal case and the predicate FIRs registered in Nagaland, Assam and by the CBI.

Where It Stands Now

As of this writing, the case is at the trial stage. The ED's release states that a prosecution complaint has already been filed before the Special PMLA Court, Dimapur, and that the case is presently under trial, with further investigation in progress. The 17 March 2026 attachment is the latest step in that continuing investigation rather than a conclusion of it.

A provisional attachment under the PMLA is not final. It must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority within the statutory period, and those affected can contest it there and, on appeal, before the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. The public record reviewed for this report does not show any confirmation, release or appellate relief on this particular attachment as yet.

Because the matter is pre-conviction, the presumption of innocence applies to everyone named. A prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Nothing in the ED release records a court having tested those allegations against the evidence, and the outcome of the trial before the Special PMLA Court remains open.

What It Means

The HPZ Token matter illustrates how an app-based scheme can be structured to look legitimate while the money moves the other way. The ED's account describes the classic layering pattern of this category: collection through UPI and mule accounts, layering through shell companies with directors who, per the release, did not truly control them, and the recycling of a small share back to early investors to sustain confidence.

The single most useful protective step remains verification before money leaves your account. Any app promising high or assured returns, whether framed around bitcoin mining or anything else, can be checked against the registers of the Reserve Bank of India and SEBI; a genuine intermediary appears on a regulator's public database, and one that cannot be traced to any registration is a warning worth heeding. Modelling what a realistic return looks like, rather than the figures an app advertises, is a simple discipline, and a plain lumpsum calculator makes the contrast between a plausible return and an implausible promise easy to see.

For those already affected, an attachment is not a refund. It is a freeze that preserves assets while the process runs, and recovery, if it comes, follows the trial. Readers can follow related actions in the enforcement archive, including how courts have recently examined the limits of the ED's freezing powers in our report on the Supreme Court's ruling on PMLA account freezes and the parallel agency proceedings in the IL&FS matter.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt, and a provisional attachment is an investigation-stage step, not a conviction. Everyone the ED has named is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues before the Special PMLA Court, Dimapur.

What exactly did the ED attach?

Per its release dated 17 March 2026, the ED provisionally attached 94 bank accounts holding approximately Rs 10.24 crore under the PMLA, 2002. The agency says this takes cumulative attachment in the HPZ Token matter past Rs 662 crore, against total proceeds of crime it identifies at around Rs 2,200 crore.

Are PayU, Aggrepay and Easebuzz accused in the case?

No. The ED describes these payment-aggregator platforms as services that were misrepresented and misused by the network to move money. The release does not name them as accused, and nothing in the record attributes wrongdoing to those companies.

Can a provisional attachment be challenged?

Yes. A provisional attachment under the PMLA must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, and affected parties can contest it there and, on appeal, before the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. Until confirmed, it is a temporary freeze based on the ED's prima facie view.

How do I check whether an investment app is registered?

Verify any scheme promising returns against the registers of SEBI or the Reserve Bank of India before investing, and treat guaranteed high returns with caution. A registered intermediary appears on the regulator's public database; an app that cannot be traced to one is a warning sign.

This report is based on the press release of the Enforcement Directorate dated 17 March 2026 in the HPZ Token investment matter, reviewed on 1 August 2026.