ED attaches Rs 50.72 crore in Morris Coin crypto ICO case

What the Record Shows

The Enforcement Directorate has attached assets worth about Rs 50.72 crore in its money-laundering investigation into the Morris Coin cryptocurrency scheme, a Kerala-based "initial coin offering" that the agency alleges collected funds against a token that was never created or listed. The ED registered the case as ECIR/KZSZO/07/2021, dated 2 August 2021, at its Kozhikode office, on the basis of first information reports filed by the Kerala Police.

In March 2022 the ED arrested an accused it describes as a co-promoter, and in May 2022 it filed a prosecution complaint against six accused before the Special PMLA Court at Kozhikode, naming Nishad K of Malappuram as the first accused, Hasif K as a co-promoter, Abdul Gafoor, managing director of Stoxglobal Brokers, and the entities Long Reach Global, Long Reach Technologies, Morris Trading Solutions and Flywithme Mobile LLP. The provisions invoked are Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

On 27 May 2022 the Kerala High Court, in Bail Application No. 2840 of 2022 (Abdul Gafoor v Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement), refused bail to the twelfth accused, Justice Kauser Edappagath holding that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA applied and that, prima facie, the petitioner had knowingly assisted the layering of the proceeds. That is a bail-stage finding, not a conviction, and no accused has been tried.

How It Worked

Per the ED's case as recorded by the High Court, the scheme was operated through a cluster of companies - Long Reach Global, Long Reach Technologies and Morris Trading - that offered a token called Morris Coin with promised dividends of 3 to 5 per cent per day over a 300-day lock-in period. Investors were told they could buy 10 Morris Coins for Rs 15,000 and would receive the coin, plus a listing on an exchange, once the lock-in ended.

The ED alleges that the coin was never actually created and was never listed on any exchange, and that the 300-day lock-in was the device that deferred the moment investors could test the promise. The agency alleges that money raised was routed through the promoters' related entities, including Flywithme Mobile LLP and a Coimbatore-based forex outfit, in order to layer the proceeds.

According to the material placed before the High Court, the accused before it, as managing director of a brokerage described as a "pin-stockist", executed transactions of about Rs 50 crore for the scheme and earned commission of roughly Rs 1.5 crore from the first accused. The ED relied on statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, including the petitioner's own admission that he had invested in the scheme. The court recorded the first accused as absconding.

The trust mechanism, on the ED's case, was not any academic or professional credential but corporate-shell respectability: the principal accused presented himself as the head of three registered companies. Company registration, however, is not the same as authorisation to raise deposits or run an investment scheme, a distinction the case illustrates sharply.

Who Lost Money

Around 900 people are reported to have invested directly in the Morris Coin ICO, with a wider pool affected through sub-agents, concentrated in Malappuram, Kozhikode and northern Kerala, and extending into Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The ED's case, as recorded by the High Court, put the total sum collected at about Rs 1,200 crore; that figure is the amount alleged in the investigation and has not been tested at trial.

Against that alleged collection, the hard number established on the record is the ED's attachment total of about Rs 50.72 crore - Rs 36.72 crore attached earlier and a further Rs 14 crore in July 2022 - covering the bank accounts of Flywithme Mobile LLP, a hospital in Kochi and 52 acres of agricultural land in Tamil Nadu. The gap between the alleged collection and the assets traced is stark, and is typical of schemes where money is moved quickly through layers of entities.

What individual investors have recovered is not established on the record reviewed. Attached property is not the same as recovered money: an attachment freezes assets pending the outcome of proceedings, and any return to investors would depend on confirmation of the attachment and the eventual disposal of the case.

Where It Stands Now

As of today, the Morris Coin matter remains at the prosecution-complaint stage before the Special PMLA Court at Kozhikode. The most recent official record located is the Kerala High Court's bail refusal of 27 May 2022; no conviction has been reported, and the case is now about four years old measured from the 2021 ECIR. That delay is itself a fact worth noting about how long economic-offence trials take to reach a verdict.

The attachments made in 2022 require confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, and remain subject to challenge before the Appellate Tribunal. The first accused was recorded by the High Court as absconding; where an accused is not before the court, the trial of the remaining accused can proceed separately.

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. The bail-stage observations of the High Court were made for the limited purpose of deciding custody and do not decide the merits.

What It Means

The Morris Coin case sits alongside other crypto matters the Oquilia enforcement desk has tracked, such as the OctaFX platform matter and the STA Token scheme, in which a digital-asset story is wrapped around an ordinary promised-returns model. The defining feature here was arithmetic: a dividend of 3 to 5 per cent per day is not a return any genuine asset produces, and the lock-in period existed to keep investors from testing it.

The case also shows why company registration is routinely, and dangerously, mistaken for regulatory authorisation. Registering a private limited company is a routine filing; it confers no permission to collect public deposits or run a collective investment scheme, which requires clearance from SEBI or the RBI depending on the structure. On the ED's case, that gap was the trust play.

For a reader, the protective step is simple arithmetic and one check. Run any promised return through a neutral tool - Oquilia's lump-sum calculator will show that a claim of 3 per cent a day compounds to figures no real business sustains - and verify the promoter's registration with SEBI or the RBI before parting with money. A daily or fixed high return that depends on a lock-in you cannot exit early is the pattern to distrust.

FAQ

Does this mean the accused are guilty?

No. A prosecution complaint and a provisional attachment contain allegations, not findings of guilt. The people named by the ED are accused, not convicted; they are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the trial before the Special PMLA Court is yet to conclude.

What exactly did the ED do in this case?

The ED registered a money-laundering case (ECIR/KZSZO/07/2021), arrested a co-promoter in March 2022, filed a prosecution complaint against six accused before the Special PMLA Court, Kozhikode, and attached assets cumulatively worth about Rs 50.72 crore, including bank accounts, a hospital in Kochi and 52 acres of land in Tamil Nadu.

How much did the scheme allegedly collect?

The ED's case, as recorded by the Kerala High Court, put the sum collected at about Rs 1,200 crore. That is the amount alleged in the investigation and has not been tested at trial. The assets actually attached total about Rs 50.72 crore.

Have investors got their money back?

Not on the record reviewed. An attachment freezes assets pending proceedings; it is not the same as money returned. Any recovery would depend on confirmation of the attachment and the outcome of the case before the Special PMLA Court.

How do I check whether a scheme is authorised?

Verify the promoter's registration with SEBI or the RBI rather than relying on the fact that a company is registered. Company registration is a routine filing and is not authorisation to collect deposits or run an investment scheme. A promised return of several per cent per day, or a compulsory lock-in, is a warning sign.

This report is based on the Kerala High Court order dated 27 May 2022 in Abdul Gafoor v Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and the Enforcement Directorate's attachment actions in the Morris Coin matter, reviewed on 1 August 2026.