New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to grant anticipatory bail to a chartered accountant accused in a ₹640 crore cyber fraud and money-laundering case, upholding the Delhi High Court’s earlier order and directing him to surrender before investigators within ten days.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Augustine George Masih declined pre-arrest protection to Bhaskar Yadav, observing that the allegations pointed to a layered financial operation requiring custodial interrogation. The Delhi High Court had on February 2 rejected anticipatory bail pleas filed by Yadav and co-accused Ashok Kumar Sharma, terming the case an “intricate mesh” of laundering of proceeds of crime.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
In its 22-page order, the High Court had said the Enforcement Directorate’s request for custodial questioning was justified given the scale and structure of the transactions. The court noted that the accused, being financial professionals, allegedly engineered multi-layered fund movements to conceal the origin of money siphoned from victims.
The investigation stems from two FIRs registered by the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police into cyber fraud worth ₹640 crore, involving online betting, gambling platforms, fake part-time job offers and phishing operations. According to the ED, the proceeds were routed through more than 5,000 mule bank accounts across India before being transferred to a UAE-based payment platform.
Investigators have alleged that part of the defrauded money was withdrawn in cash in Dubai using debit and credit cards linked to Indian bank accounts, indicating cross-border movement of funds. The agency has also claimed that a network of chartered accountants, company secretaries and crypto traders worked in coordination to layer and launder the illicit proceeds.
Rejecting the bail plea, the High Court had clarified that cryptocurrency transactions by themselves are not illegal in India and attract only tax liability. However, it emphasised that the present case involved fraudulent extraction of money from investors—largely from the middle class—followed by complex laundering channels designed to obscure the money trail.
The court further took note of allegations that the accused attempted to influence the probe, including claims of assaulting investigating officers, bribing local police to settle complaints and destroying electronic evidence. These factors, it said, weighed against granting pre-arrest bail.
While reiterating that personal liberty is a fundamental right, the High Court held that it cannot override the need for an effective investigation in a case with significant economic ramifications.
With the Supreme Court declining relief, the accused is now required to surrender and join the ED’s investigation within the stipulated period.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
