Mumbai, Aug 17 A special court on Monday refused to discharge a 65-year-old chartered accountant in a multi-crore Ponzi scam, allegedly orchestrated by his son, noting that he had played a direct role in misappropriating funds.
Special MPID Judge N G Shukla cited financial transactions between the accused's CA firm and his son's establishment, along with WhatsApp transcripts, as evidence showing his active involvement in managing the siphoned funds.
The prosecution had alleged that the accused, Deepak Jain, leveraged his professional credentials as a CA to guide his son Ankit Jain and induce depositors into investing in the fraudulent firm, A J Enterprises.
Deepak Jain had sought discharge from the case under Section 262 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The special Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act held that the accused definitely has a specific role in misappropriating and managing the deposits.
According to the prosecution, Deepak Jain's son, Ankit, through his firm A J Enterprises, allegedly lured more than 900 investors by promising a lucrative 15 per cent profit on investments, ultimately collecting crores of rupees before failing to deliver the assured return.
An FIR was registered following a complaint by a depositor.
Investigations revealed a significant money trail, with Rs 1,52,81,001 transferred from the financial establishment to Jain's CA firm account between August 2024 and June 2025, before Rs 1,76,02,300 was transferred back, the police said.
Furthermore, transcripts from a WhatsApp group named 'DJAJHR' allegedly showed Deepak Jain advising his son on managing the collected deposits.
The accused, in his defence, contended that he had no role in the management of his son's proprietary firm and that no money was directly entrusted to him by the investors.
The defence also claimed that mere suspicion from witnesses was insufficient to frame charges.
However, the court noted that witness statements — which indicated Jain was present in the office, misrepresented himself as a partner, and personally assured depositors of high returns — raised a "grave suspicion" rather than mere doubt.
The order highlighted that Jain allowed his bank account to be used to divert depositors' funds, which amounts to abetment of misappropriation.
"It appears from the bank account statements that the amount of depositors was time being diverted into the account of the applicant's chartered accountant firm, instead of investing the said amount in the business of the FE," the court said.
Hence, it concluded that there is sufficient material to frame charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for cheating, criminal breach of trust by an agent, and abetment, as well as relevant provisions of the MPID Act.
