The most consequential part of the Directorate of Enforcement’s second supplementary complaint in the HPZ Token case is not about the app. It is about the payment rails — and it names five companies and four of their key managerial persons.
The five entities
The ED’s release of 30 April 2026 names:
- M/s Paygate India Pvt. Ltd
- M/s Safexpay Technology Private Limited
- M/s Virtous Payment Solutions LLP (spelling as printed in the ED’s release)
- M/s Intrapay Product Solutions
- M/s IECS Consultancy Ltd.
What the ED alleges they did
In the ED’s words, these entities “through its KMPs Ravi Shankar Gupta, Aditya Oberoi, Pankaj Tripathi, Joy Oberoi have allegedly helped in the laundering of the Proceeds of Crime through the misuse of the payment gateway infrastructure and floating dummy entities.”
The ED continues: “these entities acted as payment gateway companies whose infrastructure was allegedly misused to layer Proceeds of Crime generated through the HPZ Token scam and other illegal online gaming/betting/ponzi investment schemes.”
Two things in that sentence deserve attention. The first is the word allegedly, which the ED uses and which we retain. The second is “and other” — the ED is not confining the alleged misuse to HPZ Token.
Why the plumbing matters more than the app
An investment scheme that collects money from thousands of people has a problem the moment it succeeds: the money is in accounts that can be traced to it. Solving that problem is what a layering operation is for.
A payment gateway sits at the point where money enters the formal financial system. It is the licensed, regulated, ordinary-looking doorway. When an investigating agency alleges that the doorway itself was misused, it is alleging something structurally more serious than one fraudulent app: it is alleging that the mechanism designed to make payments accountable was turned to the opposite purpose.
The ED describes the method as “sophisticated layering techniques through a multi-tiered web of fintech companies, payment gateways, e-commerce entities, gaming companies, and cryptocurrency assets to obscure the origin of illicit funds.”
“Floating dummy entities”
The phrase in the ED’s complaint is precise: the KMPs are alleged to have helped launder proceeds “through the misuse of the payment gateway infrastructure and floating dummy entities.”
That is two distinct allegations, not one. Misusing infrastructure is a question of what was permitted through an existing system. Floating dummy entities is a question of creating companies for the purpose.
What has and has not happened
What has happened: an investigating agency has filed a complaint before a special court naming these companies and these individuals among 437 accused.
What has not happened: any trial, any finding, any conviction. The ED’s complaint is an accusation. The Special Court for PMLA Cases at Dimapur has not tested it.
The distinction is not a formality. It is the difference between what an agency says it will prove and what a court has held.
A note on names
The individuals named on this page are identified by the role and company attributed to them in the ED’s complaint. Several are common Indian names shared by many people, including public figures who have no connection whatever to this case and are not referred to here. Any person who shares one of these names but is not a key managerial person of the specific companies named in the ED’s complaint is not among the accused and nothing on this page refers to them.
Source
Every figure, name, date and case reference on this page is taken from the Directorate of Enforcement’s press release of 30 April 2026, issued by its Dimapur Sub-Zonal Office and published on the ED’s own website. Where secondary coverage of this case differs from the ED’s document, we have followed the ED. Nothing here is drawn from an anonymous source.
Right of reply
Every company and individual named on this page is invited to respond. If any figure, date, name, designation or description here is inaccurate, write to us with the correcting document and we will publish the correction, or the response in full, alongside this article without charge and without editing its substance.
No adjudication
No court has tried or determined any of these allegations. A prosecution complaint is an accusation made by an investigating agency, not a finding of guilt. All 437 persons and entities named across the three complaints in this case are accused; none has been convicted of anything described here, and each is presumed innocent unless and until a court holds otherwise. The descriptions on this page are the ED’s allegations, reported as allegations. Nothing here asserts that any person or company committed an offence, or asserts any intent, motive, knowledge or state of mind.
Source
Directorate of Enforcement press release, 30 April 2026 (Dimapur Sub-Zonal Office): https://enforcementdirectorate.gov.in/media/press-release-documents/d5aae482-1b50-4956-b4c3-d0a043bb1d6d_Press%20Release_HPZ_Token_2nd_SPC_30042026_DMSZO-2.pdf