An Ahmedabad businessman has alleged that a father-daughter duo defrauded him of ₹28.37 lakh after promising to help recover ₹42 crore that had allegedly remained stuck in a bank account since 2021-22. The complainant, 34-year-old Nikol resident Jalpin Maganbhai Bhimani, approached the Economic Offences Prevention Branch (EOPB) of the CID Crime with allegations against Anil Bhikhabhai Vibhani alias Barot and his daughter Rajvi Anilbhai Vibhani.
Bhimani, a director of JMB Wealth Management Private Limited, alleged that the accused claimed to have strong connections with senior police and government officials and assured him that they could use those contacts to facilitate the release of the ₹42 crore. The complaint was registered by the EOPB on August 18.
According to the complaint, Bhimani was introduced to the father-daughter duo in March 2024 through his lawyer friend Hitendrabhai D. Rajput. During their discussions, the alleged ₹42 crore stuck in a bank account since 2021-22 became the subject of negotiations. The accused allegedly represented themselves as brokers and agents involved in land and property transactions in Ahmedabad and Surat.
During a meeting at Anil Vibhani’s residence on March 30, 2024, the accused allegedly told Bhimani that they could arrange the recovery of the money through their contacts. They initially demanded ₹25 lakh as an advance, claiming that the amount was required to facilitate the process through senior officials. They allegedly assured him that the arrangement would take about a month and that ₹5 crore could be recovered by the end of April.
Bhimani alleged that he and his elder brother Mayur arranged the money by borrowing from relatives and friends and pledging gold. According to the complaint, ₹25 lakh was paid to the accused in two instalments between April 1 and April 5, 2024.
About a week later, Anil Vibhani allegedly demanded another ₹3.5 lakh, claiming that the money was urgently required to show a senior official that Bhimani was his business partner. Although Bhimani initially refused, he allegedly later arranged the amount. He transferred ₹2 lakh through RTGS on April 13, ₹1.25 lakh through IMPS on April 15 and ₹12,500 through IMPS on April 17. The total amount allegedly paid to the accused consequently reached ₹28.37 lakh.
However, the promised recovery did not take place by the end of April. The accused allegedly began giving different explanations and asked Bhimani to wait. The complaint states that they later claimed the money could be arranged through the sale of land and allegedly showed him documents related to land in Jhundal village of Gandhinagar.
Bhimani alleged that repeated requests for repayment were met with delays. When he and his associates allegedly pressed the accused to return the money, the accused became angry, abused them and allegedly issued threats. The complainant further alleged that the accused eventually refused to return the amount.
The complaint also mentions attempts to repay the money through cheques. Bhimani alleged that a ₹15 lakh cheque was shown to him in September 2025. Another ₹15 lakh cheque was subsequently provided through his lawyer friend. The latter cheque, dated January 23, 2026, was allegedly dishonoured with the remark “Funds Insufficient”.
According to the complaint, the accused had transferred ₹5 lakh to Bhimani in December 2025 and promised to pay the remaining amount within a week through an Angadia. The complainant alleged that the remaining amount was never paid.
Bhimani has also referred in his complaint to cases allegedly registered against Anil Vibhani in Ahmedabad and Surat. These reportedly include allegations related to cheating, criminal breach of trust, intimidation and property disputes. The claims and details of these cases will be independently verified during the investigation.
The CID Crime’s EOPB has begun investigating the allegations. Investigators are expected to examine bank transactions, account details, communications, cheques, property documents and the alleged claims of connections with senior officials.
The allegations made by the complainant remain under investigation, and the role of the accused has not been established in court.
