ED attaches 94 mule accounts in HPZ Token investment scam

What the Record Shows

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Dimapur Sub Zonal Office, has provisionally attached 94 bank accounts holding proceeds of crime of approximately Rs 10.24 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in connection with its investigation into the HPZ Token investment scam. The action is set out in the ED press release dated 17 March 2026. A provisional attachment is an investigation-stage step: it must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, and it is not a conviction.

The ED states that it took up the case 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 of the CID Police Station, Ulubari, Guwahati, and CBI case RC2212022E0022 dated 8 June 2022 of EO-III, Delhi, were also taken up for investigation under the PMLA.

According to the ED, the total proceeds of crime identified in the case are around Rs 2,200 crore, of which more than Rs 662 crore have been attached to date; the present order accounts for the further 94 mule accounts and Rs 10.24 crore. A prosecution complaint has already been filed before the Special PMLA Court, Dimapur, and the case is under trial. The ED says further investigation is in progress.

No response from the persons named appears on the ED record reviewed for this report. The persons named are accused, not convicted, and the presumption of innocence applies.

How It Worked

The mechanism, as the ED describes it, was a cyber-enabled investment fraud. The agency alleges that investors across the country were induced to put money into the HPZ Token app on false promises of high returns. Per the ED, the scheme relied on a large number of mule accounts, shell companies and dummy directors, together with the misuse of payment-aggregator services, to layer and launder the money collected.

On the ED's account, funds were first collected from investors through multiple UPI IDs linked to mule accounts at a private bank. The agency alleges the money was then transferred to shell companies which received it by misrepresenting and misusing payment-aggregator platforms such as PayU, Aggrepay and Easebuzz. Those platforms are described by the ED as having been misused as conduits; they are not named as accused in the order, and nothing here should be read as an allegation against them. The ED further alleges that a small portion of the funds was cycled back to investors to create a false sense of legitimacy and draw in further investment.

The ED describes a network of mule accounts and shell entities. It names, among others, M/s Digi India Marketing (sole proprietor Indu Prabh Sharma, but controlled by Bhupesh Arora as stated by the proprietor); M/s Analytiq Business Ventures Private Limited (directors Akshay Dhawan and Vivek Kumar, described by the ED as employees of Bhupesh Arora); M/s Freebie Solutions Private Limited (directors Bhupesh Arora and Gulshan Arora); M/s Truvinta Solutions Pvt Ltd (director Aveg Sharma, but controlled by Bhupesh Arora as stated by Aveg Sharma); M/s Zavion Trading Pvt Ltd (directors Prince Kumar and Deepak Kumar, but controlled by Bhupesh Arora); and M/s Sark Enroll System Private Limited (director Thakur Dayapal Singh, but controlled by Bhupesh Arora as stated by Thakur Dayapal Singh). The ED reproduces the qualification that several of these directors were nominees; that characterisation is the agency's and remains to be tested at trial.

The ED alleges that Bhupesh Arora and his associates used these entities, along with a network of mule accounts, hawala operators and foreign-exchange channels, to launder the proceeds of crime. The procedural chain on the record runs from the predicate FIRs and the CBI case, to the ED's money-laundering investigation and successive attachments, to the prosecution complaint now under trial.

Who Lost Money

The ED describes the HPZ Token scam as a large-scale investment fraud with investors across the country, but the order reviewed for this report does not state an individual victim count. What the record does quantify is the alleged scale of the money involved: around Rs 2,200 crore identified as proceeds of crime, a figure that reflects the sums the ED alleges passed through the network rather than a court-determined loss.

Against that alleged total, more than Rs 662 crore has been attached so far, including the Rs 10.24 crore across 94 accounts in the present order. As with any PMLA attachment, freezing an account does not return money to investors. Attached balances are held pending the outcome of the proceedings, and any distribution to those who lost money would follow a separate, court-supervised process.

For retail investors drawn in through the app, recovery therefore remains pending and, given the gap between the alleged proceeds and the amount traced, uncertain. The record before this report does not show any distribution to affected investors having been made.

Where It Stands Now

As of today, the case is under trial before the Special PMLA Court, Dimapur, where the ED's prosecution complaint has been filed. The 17 March 2026 order is a provisional attachment, which under the PMLA must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority within the statutory period, and both the attachment and any confirmation can be challenged before the Appellate Tribunal and the higher courts. The ED has said its investigation continues, so further attachments or additions to the array of accused are possible.

Because the matter is pre-conviction, the presumption of innocence governs. A prosecution complaint and a provisional attachment contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. This report states the position as recorded by the ED on 17 March 2026 and does not predict the outcome of the trial.

What It Means

The matter shows how a cyber-enabled investment app is examined once the money trail is unpicked. Two features recur in cases of this kind: a mobile app promising outsized returns, and a payout to early investors that is used to manufacture credibility. A return that looks too good to be true, funded visibly by fresh deposits rather than any disclosed business, is the clearest warning sign a saver has.

The practical checks are simple. An app inviting investment is not the same as a registered intermediary; a genuine market product is offered by a SEBI-registered entity whose registration can be verified on the SEBI website, and a regulated deposit sits with an RBI-regulated bank or non-banking finance company. It is worth modelling any promised return with a lumpsum calculator to see what a realistic rate produces, because the difference between that and an app's headline promise is the measure of the risk. Nothing here is advice to buy or avoid any product.

The case also illustrates that a payment aggregator appearing in a money trail is not itself an accused; the ED describes PayU, Aggrepay and Easebuzz as platforms that were misused. Readers can follow how these matters progress through the enforcement archive, alongside related deposit and investment cases such as the Fashion Gold deposit case.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A prosecution complaint and a provisional attachment contain allegations, not findings of guilt. The case is under trial before the Special PMLA Court, Dimapur, and the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Due process continues, and this report should not be read as establishing wrongdoing by anyone named.

What exactly did the Enforcement Directorate do?

Per its press release of 17 March 2026, the ED provisionally attached 94 bank accounts holding about Rs 10.24 crore under the PMLA in the HPZ Token investment scam. It says more than Rs 662 crore has been attached to date out of around Rs 2,200 crore identified as proceeds of crime, and a prosecution complaint is already under trial.

Are PayU, Aggrepay and Easebuzz accused in this case?

No. The ED describes these payment-aggregator platforms as having been misrepresented and misused by the accused as conduits for the money. They are not named as accused in the order, and nothing in this report is an allegation against them.

Have investors got their money back?

Not on the record reviewed. A provisional attachment freezes accounts; it does not return money to investors. Any distribution would follow a separate, court-supervised process, and the amount traced so far is well below the roughly Rs 2,200 crore the ED alleges was involved.

How can I check whether an investment app is legitimate?

A genuine market intermediary is registered with SEBI and can be verified on the SEBI website; a regulated deposit sits with an RBI-regulated bank or NBFC. An app promising very high returns, especially one that pays early investors from fresh deposits, is not evidence of a real business, and registration should be checked before any money is committed.

Where can I read the official order?

The Enforcement Directorate's press release dated 17 March 2026 on the provisional attachment in the HPZ Token matter is published on the ED website and is linked at the end of this report.

This report is based on the Enforcement Directorate press release dated 17 March 2026 on the provisional attachment order in the HPZ Token investment scam, reviewed on 1 August 2026.