Raj Kundra Granted Bail in ₹150 Crore Bitcoin Money Laundering Case

The granting of bail to businessman Raj Kundra by a special Mumbai court marks a significant procedural milestone in one of India's most complex cryptocurrency-related money laundering investigations. Presided over by Special Judge R.B. Rote under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the court's decision follows a years-long probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) into the 'Gain Bitcoin' Ponzi scheme. While the bail provides temporary relief for Kundra, the underlying allegations paint a detailed picture of how early-stage crypto ventures in the region allegedly interfaced with illicit financial flows.

At the heart of the ED's case is the claim that Kundra received 285 Bitcoins from Amit Bhardwaj, the late mastermind behind the Gain Bitcoin scam, which reportedly defrauded thousands of investors. According to the charge sheet, these assets were intended to fund the establishment of a Bitcoin mining farm in Ukraine. However, the ED contends that when the deal failed to materialize, the Bitcoins were never returned. At current market valuations, these 285 tokens represent a fortune exceeding ₹150 crore (approximately $18-19 million), making the recovery of these assets a primary objective for federal investigators.

“

At current market valuations, these 285 tokens represent a fortune exceeding ₹150 crore (approximately $18-19 million), making the recovery of these assets a primary objective for federal investigators.

The legal battle has centered on Kundra's specific role in the transaction. His defense, led by advocate Prashant Patil, maintains that Kundra acted merely as a mediator and has fully cooperated with the investigation since 2021. The defense argued that since all relevant documentation is already in the ED's possession, custodial interrogation was unnecessary. However, the ED has countered this narrative with evidence of a 'Term Sheet' signed between Kundra and Mahendra Bhardwaj (Amit’s father), which the agency claims proves Kundra was a 'beneficial owner' rather than a neutral third party. The agency further noted that Kundra’s ability to recall the exact details of five specific tranches of Bitcoin received seven years ago suggests a level of personal involvement consistent with ownership.

This case is emblematic of the broader regulatory challenges facing the Indian government as it seeks to tighten its grip on digital asset transactions. The Gain Bitcoin scheme was one of the first major crypto-related frauds to hit the Indian market, and its tendrils have reached several high-profile individuals. The ED’s persistence in pursuing the 'wallet addresses'—which Kundra has reportedly failed to provide since 2018—highlights the technical difficulties authorities face in tracing decentralized assets. Without these addresses, the 285 Bitcoins remain effectively locked or hidden, complicating the agency's efforts to seize the proceeds of the alleged crime.

Looking ahead, the trial will likely hinge on the 'Term Sheet' and the digital trail of the 285 Bitcoins. If the ED can prove that Kundra knowingly integrated proceeds from the Ponzi scheme into his own holdings, it could set a major precedent for how PMLA is applied to virtual digital assets (VDAs) in India. For the broader Web3 industry, the case serves as a stark reminder of the 'know your business' (KYB) risks associated with early-stage crypto partnerships. As India continues to refine its crypto regulatory framework, high-profile enforcement actions like this one are expected to become more frequent, signaling an end to the era of regulatory ambiguity for digital assets in the country.