PMLA court restitutes Rs 65 crore to Popular Finance depositors

What the Record Shows

The Special Court for PMLA Cases at Ernakulam has, 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 Act, 2019 (BUDS Act), in the case of the Popular Group of Companies, according to an Enforcement Directorate (ED) press release dated 19 February 2026. The restituted assets comprise Rs 33.20 crore in movable property and Rs 31.87 crore in immovable property.

Those assets had been attached by the ED during its money-laundering investigation through Provisional Attachment Orders dated 17 September 2021 and 29 December 2021, which were subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The attachments relate to 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 IPC and provisions of the BUDS Act.

The ED states the case involves widespread cheating of depositors by the Popular Group of Companies and its promoters, directors and partners, named in the release as Thomas Daniel, Prabha Thomas, Rinu Mariam Thomas, Reeba Mary Thomas, Ria Ann Thomas and others. A prosecution complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA was filed on 30 April 2022 (SC No. 392/2022), with a supplementary complaint on 31 July 2023, and the ED had arrested two of the accused, Thomas Daniel and Rinu Mariam Thomas, on 9 August 2021. These remain allegations in a pending prosecution; no one has been convicted.

How It Worked

The unusual feature of this matter is that the news is a return of money rather than a fresh accusation. The restitution followed directions of the Kerala High Court dated 17 December 2024 in WP(C) No. 22221/2024, after which the Competent Authority under the BUDS Act approached the Special PMLA Court under Section 8(8) of the PMLA seeking transfer of the attached assets for distribution to depositors.

The ED says it submitted no objection to that request, facilitating expeditious restitution to the genuine depositors and victims. The Special Court, while allowing the petition, observed that the interests of the affected depositors, who are the same under both statutes, need to be protected and that the transfer will enable the BUDS Authority to adjudicate and distribute the assets equitably.

On the underlying conduct, the ED's investigation describes a family-controlled deposit business that, per the agency, accepted fixed deposits and gold-backed deposits from the public across a large branch network without authorisation to accept public deposits, before operations halted and left depositors stranded. Those characterisations are the ED's allegations, tested through the prosecution complaint rather than established by any verdict. Importantly, the release records that the objections raised by the accused persons have been kept open for adjudication before the BUDS Authority, so the transfer of assets is not a determination against them.

The assets will now be handed over to the Competent Authority, Government of Kerala, represented by the District Collector, Ernakulam, for further proceedings under the BUDS Act.

Who Lost Money

The depositors at the centre of the case are Kerala savers, and press reporting has noted that a substantial number were non-resident Indians who had remitted Gulf earnings home into what they took to be a safe deposit business. The exact number of depositors is not stated in the current ED release, and the widely cited figure of around Rs 2,000 crore in total deposits is press-sourced rather than an ED number; the figure the ED itself puts on the record here is the Rs 65.07 crore of assets now being returned.

That gap between headline deposit estimates and assets actually recovered is the reality of most deposit-scheme cases: what can be traced and attached is usually a fraction of what was collected, because much of the money has already been spent or moved. For savers weighing a gold-backed or fixed-deposit offer, understanding how a genuine return actually accrues is a useful discipline, and a simple gold investment calculation shows how modest real returns are compared with the rates unauthorised schemes tend to promise.

What each depositor eventually recovers will depend on the BUDS Authority's adjudication of claims and the equitable distribution of the Rs 65.07 crore, alongside any further assets that may be realised.

Where It Stands Now

The criminal case remains pending. The ED's prosecution complaint and supplementary complaint are before the Special PMLA Court, and the accused are yet to face trial to a conclusion. The 10 February 2026 order deals only with the disposal of attached assets, not with guilt or innocence.

The restituted properties now pass to the Kerala Competent Authority under the BUDS Act, which will adjudicate depositor claims and distribute the proceeds. Crucially, the ED release records that the objections raised by the accused have been kept open for adjudication before that Authority, meaning the transfer is without prejudice to their position.

A prosecution complaint and an attachment contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues both in the criminal trial and in the BUDS adjudication.

What It Means

This matter is worth following precisely because it shows the recovery machinery working, which happens far less visibly than the arrests that open such cases. The BUDS Act was designed for exactly this situation: an unregulated deposit scheme collapses, assets are attached, and a designated authority is empowered to gather and return them to depositors. Here, a High Court direction and a court transfer have moved Rs 65.07 crore into the distribution pipeline.

The practical takeaway for savers is verification before deposit. Only entities authorised to accept public deposits, such as banks and specified non-banking financial companies registered with the RBI, may lawfully do so, and an attractive rate offered by an unincorporated firm is a warning rather than an opportunity. Checking a firm's authorisation costs nothing beforehand and is far easier than pursuing money afterwards. Readers can follow related recovery and enforcement actions through the enforcement archive.

Restitution, finally, is a process and not a single moment. Even a favourable transfer order is followed by claim verification and pro-rata distribution, which is why recovered sums usually reach depositors slowly and rarely in full, as the BUDS Authority adjudicates each claim.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. The prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt. The promoters and partners named by the ED are accused in a pending PMLA prosecution and are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and their objections have been kept open for adjudication before the BUDS Authority.

What exactly did the court order?

Per the ED, the Special PMLA Court at Ernakulam, by order dated 10 February 2026, restituted attached properties valued at Rs 65.07 crore to the BUDS Competent Authority for equitable distribution to affected depositors.

Will depositors get their money back now?

The order moves the assets towards distribution rather than paying depositors immediately. The Kerala Competent Authority must adjudicate claims and distribute the Rs 65.07 crore, a process that takes time and rarely returns the full sum deposited.

Why are two statutes involved?

The ED investigated the alleged money laundering under the PMLA and attached assets, while the BUDS Act, 2019 provides the machinery to return depositors' money. The court transferred the PMLA-attached assets to the BUDS Authority because the affected depositors are the same under both laws.

Where can I read the official record?

The ED published a press release dated 19 February 2026 on enforcementdirectorate.gov.in setting out the restitution order, the case references and the procedural history. That release is the primary source for this report.

This report is based on the press release of the Enforcement Directorate dated 19 February 2026 and the case record reviewed on 1 August 2026.