Nearly a decade after thousands of investors were drawn into a fabricated cryptocurrency scheme built on false promises of government recognition, the Enforcement Directorate has begun acting on the case in earnest. Searches conducted across multiple locations in the Mumbai-Thane region resulted in the seizure of roughly ₹1 crore in cash and assets, marking the first substantive central-agency action in a fraud that investigators say caused losses of approximately ₹113 crore.
The case centres on Money Trade Coin, an unrecognised cryptocurrency floated between August 2017 and April 2018 by Amit Madanlal Lakhanpal, who allegedly presented himself as a Finance Ministry official during investor seminars to lend the scheme false legitimacy. The Enforcement Directorate’s intervention follows a criminal case that had remained largely dormant within the Thane City Police’s records for close to eight years.
A Scheme Built on Borrowed Authority
According to the agency, Lakhanpal held seminars in Delhi, Pune and Nashik, where he claimed Money Trade Coin would soon receive official government recognition, a promise investigators say had no factual basis. This alleged impersonation of regulatory authority proved central to the scheme’s credibility, since investors were led to believe their holdings carried implicit government backing rather than existing entirely outside any regulatory framework.
The accused subsequently introduced a series of related offerings, including Coin Deposit Ratio, MTC Banque, MTCX India and Cryptozaniya, expanding the scheme’s apparent legitimacy through multiple branded products. Investigators allege the value of the coin was manipulated and that trading and withdrawal facilities were eventually cut off entirely, leaving investors unable to recover either their original investment or the returns they had been promised.
Beyond Lakhanpal, the Enforcement Directorate has named Taha Hafiz Qazi, Sachin Vasant Shelar and Komal Bhimrao Shirsath among the accused in its money laundering investigation. A former Maharashtra police officer has also been implicated in the case, accused of facilitating the fraud’s operation from within law enforcement itself, a detail that underscores how the scheme allegedly extended its reach into institutions meant to prevent such fraud.
Fugitives, False Identities and a Trail Across Continents
The agency has alleged that Lakhanpal and several close associates left India after the fraud became public, obtaining passports from Antigua and Barbuda and subsequently residing in Dubai under assumed identities. Following the latest round of searches, three associates summoned for questioning approached the special court handling cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act seeking anticipatory bail, a request that has reportedly been rejected given the scale of public money allegedly involved.
This pattern, in which principal accused in large financial frauds relocate abroad and adopt alternative citizenship, has become a familiar obstacle in Indian white-collar crime investigations, often delaying prosecution by years even after the underlying fraud has been established. The gap between the original 2018 police complaint and the current central agency action illustrates how long such cases can remain effectively stalled without sustained institutional pressure.
What the Case Signals for Crypto Oversight
The Money Trade Coin case predates much of India’s current regulatory engagement with digital assets, having originated at a time when cryptocurrency operated in a considerably murkier legal space than it does today. Even so, the core deception it relied upon, invoking implied government backing to override investor caution, remains a recurring feature of financial fraud schemes across both crypto and conventional investment products.
The Enforcement Directorate’s continuing investigation is focused on establishing the complete money trail behind the ₹113 crore in alleged losses and identifying any additional beneficiaries connected to the network of associated schemes. For investors evaluating any cryptocurrency or digital asset opportunity, the case reinforces a now-familiar caution that claims of official recognition or government approval should always be independently verified through authorised regulatory channels rather than accepted on the word of a scheme’s promoters.
