PMLA court restitutes Rs 65 crore in Popular Group deposit case

What the Record Shows

The Special Court for PMLA Cases at Ernakulam, by an order dated 10 February 2026, restituted attached properties valued at Rs 65.07 crore to the Competent Authority under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019, in the case of the Popular Group of Companies. The properties, comprising movables worth Rs 33.20 crore and immovables worth Rs 31.87 crore, had been attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) during its money-laundering investigation. The restitution is a transfer of custody of the attached assets to a state authority for adjudication and distribution; it is not a conviction, and no accused has been found guilty.

The ED case rests on ECIR No. KCZO/32/2020 dated 17 September 2020, registered on the basis of scheduled offences under Sections 120B, 420, 406, 409 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the BUDS Act, 2019. Per the ED, the matter involves the widespread cheating of depositors by the Popular Group of Companies and its promoters, directors and partners, named in the record as Thomas Daniel, Prabha Thomas, Rinu Mariam Thomas, Reeba Mary Thomas, Ria Ann Thomas and others.

Those named are accused persons facing trial. The Special Court, while allowing the restitution petition, expressly kept open the objections raised by the accused for adjudication before the BUDS Authority. A prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt.

How It Worked

Per the ED, the Popular Group of Companies was a family-run finance business in central Kerala that accepted fixed deposits from the public without authorisation and subsequently defaulted. The agency alleges that the group and its promoters engaged in widespread cheating of depositors through unregulated deposit schemes, the conduct that founds both the money-laundering case and the scheduled offences under the IPC and the BUDS Act.

The procedural history is unusually well documented. The ED registered its ECIR on 17 September 2020 and arrested two of the main accused, Thomas Daniel and Rinu Mariam Thomas, on 9 August 2021, per the agency's record. It issued provisional attachment orders on 17 September 2021 and 29 December 2021, both of which were subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA. A prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA was filed on 30 April 2022 as SC No. 392/2022, followed by a supplementary complaint on 31 July 2023.

The final step recorded in the official document concerns how the attached assets reach depositors. Following a direction of the Kerala High Court dated 17 December 2024 in WP(C) No. 22221/2024, the BUDS Competent Authority approached the Special PMLA Court under Section 8(8) of the PMLA, which allows attached property to be restored to claimants with a legitimate interest. The ED submitted no objection to the request. The Special Court then ordered the restitution on 10 February 2026, observing that the interests of the affected depositors, who are the same class of victims under both statutes, need to be protected and that the transfer will enable the BUDS Authority to adjudicate and distribute the assets equitably.

Who Lost Money

The depositors in this matter were small savers across Kerala, with a substantial number of pensioners and Gulf-remittance households in the Kottayam, Pathanamthitta and Ernakulam districts, the sort of depositors who place their savings in a local finance company for a fixed return. The ED and the Special Court both record that the affected depositors are the same class of victims under the PMLA and under the BUDS Act.

The figure at the centre of the restitution is Rs 65.07 crore of attached property. It is important to be precise about what that number is and is not. It is the value of assets whose custody is being transferred to the Kerala Competent Authority; it is not money that has been paid to depositors, and it is not a measure of the total sums the group is alleged to have collected. Depositors will receive distributions only after the BUDS Authority adjudicates the individual claims and the objections that the accused have been permitted to raise.

For the affected households, the practical significance of the 10 February 2026 order is that the assets now sit with a state authority whose statutory job is equitable distribution, rather than remaining frozen in a money-laundering attachment. The actual recovery each depositor sees will depend on that adjudication.

Where It Stands Now

The current position, re-checked against the ED's press release of 19 February 2026, is that the prosecution complaint and supplementary complaint are before the Special Court for PMLA Cases at Ernakulam and the matter is pending trial. No accused has been convicted. The restitution order transfers the attached property to the Competent Authority, Government of Kerala, represented by the District Collector, Ernakulam, for further proceedings under the BUDS Act.

The objections raised by the accused persons have been kept open for adjudication before the BUDS Authority, so both the criminal trial and the claims process remain live. A prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

No conviction, acquittal or discharge in this matter could be located as of 1 August 2026. The restitution should not be read as a vindication of the charges: it is a mechanism to get attached assets to depositors while the trial proceeds, and the Special Court itself left the accused persons' objections to be decided later.

What It Means

The Popular Group matter is one of the clearer worked examples of how the BUDS Act, 2019, and the PMLA are meant to fit together. The PMLA attachment freezes assets while a money-laundering case runs; the BUDS Act provides a state Competent Authority whose function is to adjudicate depositor claims and distribute recovered assets. Section 8(8) of the PMLA is the bridge that lets a court restore attached property to that authority for the benefit of victims, and the Kerala High Court's 2024 direction is what set the transfer in motion here.

For a saver, the protective lesson sits earlier in the chain. A company that accepts fixed deposits from the public generally needs authorisation, and an unregulated finance business offering attractive fixed returns is exactly the pattern the BUDS Act was written to ban. Before committing money, it is worth checking whether the entity is registered with the Reserve Bank of India and comparing the promised return against what a regulated fixed-income product actually pays, which a tool such as the lump-sum returns calculator makes straightforward. The wider enforcement pattern is collected in the enforcement archive, alongside related deposit-scheme matters such as the Torres Jewellery deposit case and the Dnyanradha co-operative deposit case.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt. Thomas Daniel, Prabha Thomas, Rinu Mariam Thomas, Reeba Mary Thomas and Ria Ann Thomas are accused persons facing trial before the Special PMLA Court, and the Special Court has kept their objections open for adjudication. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

What did the restitution order actually do?

By its order dated 10 February 2026, the Special PMLA Court at Ernakulam transferred custody of attached properties worth Rs 65.07 crore to the Kerala Competent Authority under the BUDS Act. It is a transfer of assets for adjudication and equitable distribution to depositors, not a payment to depositors and not a conviction.

Have depositors got their money back?

Not yet. The Rs 65.07 crore represents the value of attached assets now handed to the BUDS Competent Authority. Depositors will receive distributions only after that authority adjudicates individual claims and the objections raised by the accused, which the court has left open.

What is the BUDS Act and how does it help depositors?

The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, prohibits unregulated deposit-taking and provides a state Competent Authority to attach assets and distribute them to affected depositors. In this case, Section 8(8) of the PMLA was used to restore attached property to that authority for the benefit of victims.

How can I check whether a deposit-taking company is authorised?

A company accepting deposits from the public generally requires authorisation, and its status can be verified with the Reserve Bank of India before any money is placed. A local reputation or a long-running shopfront is not a substitute for regulatory authorisation.

Where can I read the official record?

The ED's press release of 19 February 2026 on the restitution is published on the Directorate of Enforcement's website, and the underlying orders are on the file of the Special Court for PMLA Cases, Ernakulam.

This report is based on the Directorate of Enforcement press release dated 19 February 2026 and the order of the Special Court for PMLA Cases, Ernakulam dated 10 February 2026, reviewed on 1 August 2026.