ED's Rs 1,646 crore BitConnect crypto seizure now before PMLA court

What the Record Shows

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), Ahmedabad Zonal Office, has seized cryptocurrency it valued at about Rs 1,646 crore in the BitConnect matter - the largest such seizure recorded by an Indian agency, per the ED's February 2025 statement following searches in Gujarat. The seizure sits within a money-laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), that has already produced provisional attachments and a prosecution complaint now before the courts.

The ED's prosecution complaint, PMLA Case No. 9 of 2023, is pending before the Special PMLA Court at Ahmedabad (Rural), as recorded in the Gujarat High Court's order dated 21 November 2025 in R/CR.RA/1879/2025. That order notes the matter is at the charge-framing stage. A prosecution complaint is the ED's equivalent of a chargesheet; it sets out allegations, not findings of guilt, and the accused are presumed innocent unless and until convicted.

The valuation attached to the seized crypto is a mark-to-market figure at the seizure date and will move with the market; it should be read as the ED's valuation at that time, not a fixed sum. Alongside the February 2025 seizure, the ED has said it made provisional attachments in 2024 - movable assets in April and immovable property worth about Rs 47.70 crore in October - in the same investigation.

The case traces back to complaints registered by CID Crime, Surat, in 2018. Per the High Court order, FIR 06/2018 dated 21 July 2018 was registered under Sections 409, 406, 420, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the Gujarat Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 2003, the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act - the predicate offences on which the PMLA case was built.

How It Worked

BitConnect ran what it called a "Lending Program". According to the record, investors exchanged bitcoin for the platform's own token, BitConnect Coin (BCC), and lent it back to the platform, which claimed a proprietary trading bot generated the returns. The Gujarat High Court order records that the scheme "promised investors to pay high interest/returns in a short time and also referral commission", at rates described as "0.5% to 2% on a daily basis" - a compounding promise with no lawful commercial basis.

Growth ran on referral commissions and a network of promoters, with Gujarat among the deepest recruitment markets in India. The platform's website, registered in early 2016, was deactivated in January 2018, and the court order records that this caused "huge financial loss to the investors".

The High Court order names the principal figures as the official record describes them: Satish Kumbhani as owner/promoter/director, Divyesh Darji as a national-level promoter, and others including Suresh Gorasiya. Kumbhani was separately indicted by a United States federal grand jury in 2022, in a case US prosecutors described as among the largest cryptocurrency frauds charged. His current status has been reported inconsistently, and this report does not characterise it beyond the roles the Indian and US records assign him.

The ED alleges the money trail then ran through layering into other assets. The revision applicants before the High Court, accused of facilitating purchases of property using tainted funds, had sought discharge on the ground that they lacked knowledge that the money represented proceeds of crime. The trial court rejected that plea, and the High Court upheld the rejection.

Who Lost Money

The people who lost money were retail investors, concentrated in Gujarat, who put bitcoin and cash into the BCC lending programme on the promise of daily returns. Globally, US prosecutors have estimated the scheme at roughly USD 2.4 billion; the originating Indian complaint came from an investor who reported a large personal loss.

The figures in the Indian prosecution are narrower than the global estimate and vary by the slice of the case. In the specific complaint examined by the High Court, investments collected were recorded at about Rs 19.61 crore and the proceeds of crime identified at about Rs 69.61 crore, with separate figures for an extortion strand in which large quantities of bitcoin and litecoin were taken from a BitConnect developer. The ED's February 2025 crypto seizure of about Rs 1,646 crore is a far larger, investigation-wide figure and reflects the value of digital assets recovered, not money returned to investors.

As with most such cases, what victims ultimately receive depends on the outcome of the trial and any confirmed attachment and distribution; a seizure is not a repayment. No distribution to BitConnect investors has been reported.

Where It Stands Now

The current position, as of the most recent official record, is that the ED's PMLA prosecution is live and at an early stage. In its order dated 21 November 2025, the Gujarat High Court dismissed revision applications by certain accused who had sought discharge, upholding the trial court's finding that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed. The complaint, PMLA Case No. 9 of 2023, therefore remains at the charge-framing stage before the Special PMLA Court, Ahmedabad (Rural).

No conviction has been recorded in India. The 2024 attachments are provisional or subject to the PMLA's confirmation and appeal process, and the February 2025 seizure is an investigation-stage step. The property attachment order in the matter ran to 155 pages and, per the High Court, was not challenged by the applicants before it.

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. Each accused is entitled to contest the charge, and the outcome will be decided by the trial court.

What It Means

BitConnect is the textbook shape of a yield-promising token scheme: a proprietary coin, a trading bot nobody can inspect, daily or monthly returns that compound to impossible annual figures, and growth driven by referral commissions rather than any real trading. The Gujarat court order's plain description - high returns in a short time, plus referral commission, then a website that simply switched off - is the pattern, not the exception.

The practical takeaway is arithmetic. A promised return of even 1% a day compounds to roughly 3,700% a year; sustained, it is mathematically incompatible with any genuine investment. Running the numbers on a realistic rate is a useful reality check: Oquilia's lump-sum calculator shows what ordinary compounding actually produces, which is nothing like a daily-return promise. Registration matters too - crypto "lending" platforms offering fixed daily yields are not regulated deposit-takers, and no Indian regulator guarantees them.

This is not investment advice and the case is not a verdict; it is a live prosecution. For how enforcement in this category tends to unfold, the Oquilia enforcement archive tracks comparable actions, including the ED's Rs 391 crore attachment in the QFX AI-forex-bot scheme.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A prosecution complaint and a provisional attachment under the PMLA contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. As of the latest record, the case is at the charge-framing stage before the Special PMLA Court, Ahmedabad, and no conviction has been recorded in India.

What did the ED actually seize?

Per its February 2025 statement, the ED seized cryptocurrency it valued at about Rs 1,646 crore, along with cash, a vehicle and digital devices, after searches in Gujarat. The valuation is a mark-to-market figure at the seizure date and moves with the market.

What is the current stage of the case?

Per the Gujarat High Court order dated 21 November 2025, the ED's prosecution complaint (PMLA Case No. 9 of 2023) is at the charge-framing stage before the Special PMLA Court, Ahmedabad (Rural). The court dismissed discharge revision applications by certain accused, so proceedings continue.

Have investors got their money back?

No distribution to BitConnect investors has been reported. A seizure or attachment secures assets during the case; whether and how much reaches investors depends on the trial's outcome and the confirmed-attachment and distribution process.

How can I check whether a scheme is a registered deposit-taker?

Platforms promising fixed daily or monthly returns on a proprietary token are not regulated deposit-takers, and no Indian regulator guarantees them. You can verify whether an entity is a registered intermediary through the SEBI and RBI websites before committing any money.

Where can I read the official record?

The Gujarat High Court's order dated 21 November 2025 in R/CR.RA/1879/2025, which sets out the FIRs, the ED's prosecution complaint and the current stage, is available on Indian Kanoon and is linked in the source note below.

This report is based on the order of the Gujarat High Court dated 21 November 2025 in R/CR.RA/1879/2025 and the Enforcement Directorate's February 2025 statement on the BitConnect seizure, reviewed on 31 July 2026.