Mumbai EOW chargesheets eight in Torres Jewellery deposit case

What the Record Shows

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police filed a 27,147-page chargesheet before the MPID Special Court in Mumbai on 17 March 2025, against the company M/s Platinum Hern Pvt Ltd, which traded under the brand name "Torres Jewellery", and a group of individuals. Per the chargesheet, the EOW alleges that the scheme collected Rs 142.58 crore from 14,157 investors through deposits dressed up as jewellery purchases. The chargesheet was filed after 69 days of investigation and names eight arrested accused, with 11 others shown as absconding.

The EOW investigation followed a first information report registered at APMC Police Station, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, after the storefronts stopped paying returns in January 2025. The named accused include Platinum Hern Pvt Ltd, Taniya alias Tazgul Kasatova, Valentina Ganesh Kumar, Sarvesh Surve, Alpesh Khara, Tausif Riaz, Armen Atian and Lallan Singh; the persons recorded as absconding include eight Ukrainian, two Indian and one Turkish national, per the chargesheet.

Running in parallel, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Mumbai opened a money-laundering probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, on the basis of the same FIR. It is important to state the arithmetic plainly: some early press coverage at the time of the collapse put the figure at Rs 1,000 crore or more, but the EOW chargesheet quantifies the alleged fraud at Rs 142.58 crore. None of the accused has been convicted, and the matter is at the pre-trial stage.

How It Worked

Per the EOW chargesheet, investors were offered weekly returns of between 2 and 9 per cent on the purchase of moissanite stones and jewellery that was represented as investment-grade. Investigators allege the structure combined features of a Ponzi scheme and a multi-level-marketing chain, with prices said to be inflated and the promised appreciation misrepresented. The glossy retail showrooms in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane, investigators allege, lent the arrangement the appearance of a legitimate jewellery business.

According to the ED, the cash collected at the Torres showrooms was not applied to the stated business. In its press release dated 10 May 2025, the ED states that the cash was "routed through Hawala operators and later converted into USDT cryptocurrency." The agency alleges that Alpesh Khara, described as a franchise owner of a known angadia entity, facilitated the collection of cash from the showrooms and assisted in converting it into cryptocurrency on the instructions of two persons named in the ED record, Oleksandr Zapichenko alias Alex and Olena Stoian.

The procedural history sits across two agencies. The FIR at Vashi in January 2025 triggered the EOW investigation under the Indian Penal Code, the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act and the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019, culminating in the 17 March 2025 chargesheet. On the money-laundering side, the ED conducted searches on 23 January 2025 that resulted in the freezing of bank accounts totalling Rs 21.75 crore; it arrested Alpesh Khara on 26 March 2025, holding him in custody until 1 April 2025; and on 9 May 2025 it searched four premises across Mumbai and Surat, seizing Rs 6.30 crore in cash along with digital devices. The ED says it has identified Rs 13.78 crore of allegedly laundered funds.

Who Lost Money

The EOW chargesheet records 14,157 victims. On the account set out in the chargesheet, they were predominantly low-income and lower-middle-income savers across Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane, including domestic workers, small traders and daily-wage earners who put in ticket sizes of a few thousand rupees each, drawn by the promise of weekly payouts from what looked like an established retail brand.

Against the alleged collection of Rs 142.58 crore, the sums recovered so far are a fraction of the total. The ED has frozen Rs 21.75 crore in bank accounts and seized Rs 6.30 crore in cash. The EOW has separately seized assets worth about Rs 32 crore and has sought Deputy Collector approval under the BUDS Act to return property, with the seized assets to be auctioned and the proceeds distributed to depositors.

As with most deposit-scheme collapses, the headline figure and the money actually available for return to investors are very different numbers. At the pre-trial stage, no distribution to the 14,157 named investors has been reported, and any recovery will depend on the auction of attached assets and the outcome of the proceedings.

Where It Stands Now

The current position, re-checked against the official record, is that the matter is chargesheeted and pending trial before the MPID Special Court in Mumbai. No accused has been convicted. Eight of the named accused were arrested and chargesheeted; 11 remain shown as absconding, which is a police assertion recorded in the chargesheet and can change if any of them appears or is traced.

The MPID Special Court has rejected the bail pleas of certain accused, and the ED's money-laundering investigation was described as ongoing in its most recent public statement on the matter. A chargesheet 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, and the framing here reflects that pre-trial status. Readers should treat every characterisation of the scheme as an allegation attributed to the EOW or the ED until the special court has ruled.

What It Means

The Torres matter illustrates why two separate laws exist for deposit schemes. The MPID Act, a Maharashtra statute, is designed to attach and auction the assets of a defaulting establishment so that depositors can be repaid, while the BUDS Act, 2019, bans unregulated deposit-taking outright across India. The practical consequence for an affected saver is that recovery runs through the courts and the auction process, not through the storefront that took the money.

For anyone weighing a scheme that promises fixed weekly or monthly returns, the protective step recorded across cases like this is verification before payment. A genuine deposit-taking business must be registered with the relevant regulator, and a jewellery retailer is not authorised to run an investment scheme simply because it has a shopfront. Returns of 2 to 9 per cent a week are far above what any regulated instrument pays; a quick comparison against what a lump sum actually earns in a mainstream product, using a tool such as the lump-sum returns calculator, makes the gap obvious. The wider pattern is visible in the enforcement record; the enforcement archive collects similar deposit-scheme matters, including the Dnyanradha co-operative deposit case and the DB Stock Consultancy Ponzi case.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt. The eight arrested accused have been chargesheeted before the MPID Special Court, and 11 others are shown as absconding, but none has been convicted. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

What exactly did the agencies allege?

The Mumbai EOW alleges that Platinum Hern Pvt Ltd, trading as Torres Jewellery, collected Rs 142.58 crore from 14,157 investors by offering weekly returns of 2 to 9 per cent on moissanite stones and jewellery. The ED separately alleges that cash was routed through hawala operators and converted into USDT cryptocurrency.

How much money has been recovered?

The ED has frozen Rs 21.75 crore in bank accounts and seized Rs 6.30 crore in cash, and has identified Rs 13.78 crore of allegedly laundered funds. The EOW has seized assets worth about Rs 32 crore for auction. Distribution to the named investors depends on the auction and the proceedings, and no payout has been reported so far.

Why do the figures differ from early news reports?

Some coverage at the time of the January 2025 collapse cited figures of Rs 1,000 crore or more. Those were early estimates. The EOW chargesheet, filed after investigation, quantifies the alleged fraud at Rs 142.58 crore, and that is the figure relied on here.

How can I check whether a scheme is registered?

A regulated deposit or investment product is authorised by a regulator such as SEBI or the Reserve Bank of India, and registration can be verified on the regulator's own website before any money is paid. A retail brand or shopfront on its own is not proof that an investment scheme is lawful.

Where can I read the official record?

The ED's press release of 10 May 2025 on the searches in this matter is published on the Directorate of Enforcement's website; the chargesheet is before the MPID Special Court, Mumbai.

This report is based on the Directorate of Enforcement press release dated 10 May 2025 and the Mumbai EOW chargesheet before the MPID Special Court, reviewed on 1 August 2026.