Follow us on Google News
A Mumbai special court has denied anticipatory bail to an 81-year-old chartered accountant in a ₹200 crore remittance fraud probe.
What Is the ₹200 Crore Remittance Case?
A special court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act rejected the anticipatory bail application of Bengaluru-based chartered accountant Seetaram Bhat, who is under investigation for allegedly facilitating illegal overseas remittances through fraudulent tax certificates.
The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) is investigating allegations that chartered accountants and company directors colluded to establish shell companies between 2021-22 and 2024-25. According to the prosecution, forged Form 15CB certificates were submitted to the Income Tax Department, facilitating foreign remittances worth approximately ₹2,575.83 crore and alleged tax evasion. Bhat is accused of issuing 163 certificates for eight companies, covering transactions worth ₹200.58 crore.
https://the420.in/fcrf-certified-chief-ai-officer-second-cohort-november-2026/
Why Did the Court Reject Anticipatory Bail?
Judge Vikram R. Jagdale observed that Bhat had allegedly issued certificates without adequately examining the account books, agreements and supporting documents of the eight companies. The court noted failures to comply with guidelines under an RBI circular and the Income Tax Rules. It also referred to allegations concerning the reporting of lower income in tax returns and failure to deduct tax at source.
The court rejected Bhat’s claim that employees had misused his digital signature. It noted that his complaint to the police was filed after the offence had been registered and described the complaint as an “after thought” intended to avoid liability. Finding material indicating his prima facie complicity, the judge held that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the alleged fraud. The court also observed that granting anticipatory bail could hamper the investigation.
What Did Bhat and the Prosecution Argue?
Bhat’s lawyers submitted that he had practised as a chartered accountant for approximately five decades and was based in Bengaluru, while employees reportedly managed his Mumbai office. They maintained that staff members had misused his digital signature, prompting him to lodge a complaint with Andheri police. The defence also stated that Bhat had cooperated with investigators and supplied relevant documents during the investigation.
Opposing the application, the prosecution alleged that Bhat had conspired with other accused persons to facilitate overseas transfers using bogus documents. It argued that he had failed to verify the necessary records before certifying the transactions. Investigators maintained that custodial questioning was essential to establish the circumstances surrounding the alleged remittances and examine the suspected involvement of other individuals in the financial transactions.
