ED charges Falcon Invoice Discounting's Amardeep Kumar under PMLA

What the Record Shows

The Enforcement Directorate has arrested Amardeep Kumar, described in court records as the managing director of Capital Protection Force Pvt Ltd, and filed a prosecution complaint against him before the designated PMLA court in a money-laundering case tied to the deposit programme branded Falcon Invoice Discounting. The ED arrested him on 19 July 2026 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and says it has since moved to attach and recover assets linked to the scheme.

The matter is on the public record beyond the agency's own statements. In its order dated 25 May 2026 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 193/2026, the Supreme Court of India recorded that Amardeep Kumar was the managing director of Capital Protection Force Pvt Ltd and that the platform, launched in 2020, "functioned as an unregulated deposit scheme that collected money from the public without adhering to applicable regulatory frameworks". The court dismissed his plea to have the investigation transferred to the CBI, holding that the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 gives an accused no enforceable right to seek such a transfer.

This is an allegation-stage matter. Amardeep Kumar has been arrested and charged; he has not been convicted of any offence, and the accusations set out below are those made by investigators and prosecutors, which remain to be tested at trial.

How It Worked

According to investigators, the Falcon Invoice Discounting app and website offered returns of 11 to 22 per cent on short-term deposits of 45 to 180 days, presented to the public as exposure to invoice-discounting deals with blue-chip counterparties. The programme was pitched as a way for retail savers to earn a share of the discount on trade receivables owed by large, well-known companies.

The agencies allege that the underlying invoices were fabricated and that the corporates whose names were invoked had no such arrangements with the company. Investigators say the well-known FMCG and e-commerce names attached to the pitch were used without those companies' knowledge, and that the associations were invented to lend the scheme credibility; on the record those corporates are treated as victims of the misrepresentation, not as participants. The ED alleges the structure operated as a rotation, with earlier investors paid from money collected from later ones, and that funds were diverted to unrelated group companies and to personal spending, including roughly Rs 21 crore said to have been spent at Goa casinos between 2021 and 2023.

The procedural history runs across several agencies. The Economic Offences Wing of the Cyberabad Police registered the initial FIRs, which were later transferred to the Telangana CID, on charges including cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act. The Telangana CID arrested Amardeep Kumar at Mumbai airport, reportedly on his return from the Middle East, before the ED registered its own money-laundering case and arrested him on 19 July 2026. Several associates have also been arrested, among them his brother Sandeep Kumar, a chartered accountant, Sharad Chandra Toshniwal, and an executive, Aryan Singh Chhabra.

Who Lost Money

The ED and the state police put the scale of the programme at about Rs 4,215 crore collected from roughly 7,056 depositors since 2021. When the scheme collapsed in January 2025, some Rs 792 crore was reported unpaid to about 4,065 investors who had not been able to withdraw their money.

The affected depositors were largely salaried, urban retail investors spread across Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. In Bengaluru alone, more than 180 investors reported losses exceeding Rs 41 crore, according to the police record. The promised short-tenure, double-digit monthly-style returns drew savers who treated the product as a safe, high-yield parking place for cash.

Against those losses, recovery so far is partial. The ED says it has provisionally attached immovable properties worth about Rs 18.14 crore, recovered assets of roughly Rs 43 crore, and auctioned a business jet linked to the scheme for about Rs 3 crore. Those figures remain well short of the sums owed, and any return of money to depositors will depend on the attachments being confirmed and on subsequent distribution steps, which have not yet run their course. Readers weighing what a promised 11 to 22 per cent short-term return actually implies can model the arithmetic with Oquilia's lump-sum returns calculator.

Where It Stands Now

As of now, the matter sits at the pre-trial stage. The ED has filed a prosecution complaint before the PMLA court, and the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Telangana Protection of Depositors Act are with the Telangana CID; charges are yet to be brought to trial. The Supreme Court's order of 25 May 2026 left the existing investigation in place, dismissing the plea to move it to the CBI.

The provisional attachments made by the ED are an investigation-stage step and require confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA before they become final; they are not, in themselves, a finding of guilt. A prosecution complaint, a chargesheet and an FIR contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

Because the trial has not begun, no court has ruled on whether the invoices were fabricated, whether the corporate associations were invented, or whether the diversion of funds occurred as alleged. Those are questions for the trial court to decide on the evidence.

What It Means

The case illustrates how the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 is meant to work. Any programme that takes deposits from the public with a promise of return, outside a recognised regulatory framework, is an unregulated deposit scheme, and the Act empowers the states and central agencies to act against it. A genuine invoice-discounting or receivables product that solicits public money would ordinarily need to be run by a registered intermediary, and the counterparties named in any pitch can be checked directly.

For a saver, the practical protection is verification before money moves. A registration can be checked on the SEBI or RBI websites, and a claimed tie-up with a large company can be confirmed with that company. A provisional attachment, when it happens, does not put cash back in an investor's account; it freezes assets that may, after confirmation and a court-supervised process, contribute to eventual recovery, usually of far less than the headline sum. The wider pattern in this category is consistent: short-tenure deposits promising returns well above what regulated fixed-income products pay, wrapped in the borrowed credibility of familiar names. You can follow related matters through Oquilia's enforcement archive, including the Fashion Gold deposit case in Kerala and the long-running Winsome Diamonds matter.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A prosecution complaint, a chargesheet and an FIR contain allegations, not findings of guilt. Amardeep Kumar and the other accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues before the trial court.

What exactly did the Enforcement Directorate do?

The ED registered a money-laundering case, arrested Amardeep Kumar on 19 July 2026 under the PMLA, and filed a prosecution complaint before the PMLA court. It says it has attached properties worth about Rs 18.14 crore and recovered assets of roughly Rs 43 crore, including proceeds from an auctioned business jet.

Were Britannia, Amazon and Godrej involved in the scheme?

No. Investigators allege the scheme falsely invoked the names of well-known corporates to appear credible, and that those associations were fabricated without the companies' knowledge. On the record, those companies are described as victims of the misrepresentation, not participants.

Have investors got their money back?

Not in full. About Rs 792 crore was reported unpaid to some 4,065 investors when the scheme collapsed in January 2025. The ED says it has attached and recovered assets worth a fraction of that, and any distribution to affected depositors depends on further legal steps.

Where can I read the official record?

The Supreme Court's order dated 25 May 2026 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 193/2026, which describes the scheme and dismisses a plea to transfer the investigation to the CBI, is available on Indian Kanoon and is linked below.

This report is based on the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 25 May 2026 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 193/2026 and the public enforcement record reviewed on 1 August 2026.