Key Highlights
- A Mumbai court has rejected the discharge plea of brothers Subhashchand and Chirag Jewria in the ₹84 crore ATC Coin fraud case registered under the MPID Act and IPC.
- ATC Coin Ltd, a UK-registered company, was found to be a fictitious entity used to run a multi-level marketing scheme disguised as a cryptocurrency venture.
- The case had previously hit a dead end after investors refused to come forward, but the court has now ruled there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial.
The court’s decision means the Jewria brothers will now face trial on charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with sections of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act.
The brothers had sought discharge, arguing that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to proceed.
What was the ATC coin scam?
The case goes back to 2017, when Mumbai Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) cracked down on ATC Coin Ltd after receiving intelligence and a forwarded complaint from the Reserve Bank of India.
The EOW found that ATC Coin Ltd was a UK-registered company with a listed address in Covent Garden, London, where approximately 9,000 other companies were also registered. The company did not actually exist at that address.
According to investigators, Subhashchand Jewria incorporated ATC Coin Ltd to create a cryptocurrency called “ATC Coin” and positioned himself as its sole director. Investors were asked to deposit money into the account of Jewria Services Club India Pvt Ltd, a firm where both Subhashchand and Chirag served as directors. The company raised approximately ₹84 crore from the public in about five months.
None of the invested money ever went into the ATC Coin Ltd account. Instead, investigators found that the bulk of these funds was transferred to the personal accounts of the two directors and used to purchase property.
The scheme operated as a classic multi-level marketing (MLM)-style fraud. Investors were lured with promises of high returns, gifts of luxury cars, sponsored foreign vacations, and the claim that after a lock-in period of 18 months, ATC Coin could be traded on exchanges or used for online shopping on platforms like Flipkart. None of these claims was ever substantiated.
A Parliamentary Enquiry later concluded that the entire operation was a bogus scheme floated by Jewria under the guise of a cryptocurrency.
Why did the case almost fall apart?
Despite the EOW recovering around ₹65 crore after freezing 28 bank accounts and attaching movable and immovable properties, the case had hit a significant roadblock.
Investigators managed to track down several investors who had put money into ATC Coin. But when approached by the police, not a single investor was willing to share details of their losses or file a formal complaint. The reluctance was reportedly driven by fear of regulatory scrutiny, since cryptocurrency was operating in a legal grey area in India at the time.
Without investor testimony, the prosecution struggled to build a case under the MPID Act, which is specifically designed to protect depositors in financial fraud cases. For years, the case remained in limbo.
The court’s latest decision to reject the discharge plea signals that despite the challenges in gathering witness cooperation, the prosecution has presented sufficient material to proceed. This is a notable development, particularly for crypto fraud cases in India, where victim reluctance has historically been a major hurdle.
A pattern of crypto fraud prosecutions in India
The ATC Coin case, while one of the earliest crypto scam prosecutions in India, is far from an isolated incident. In recent months, Indian courts and enforcement agencies have been ramping up action against crypto-linked fraud on multiple fronts.
Just last week, the CBI arrested Ayush Varshney, Co-Founder and CTO of Darwin Labs, at Mumbai airport in connection with the ₹6,000 crore GainBitcoin scam, one of India’s largest cryptocurrency Ponzi schemes. The ED has also attached assets worth over ₹97 crore belonging to Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty in connection with the same GainBitcoin network.
In December 2025, the Enforcement Directorate conducted search operations at eight locations in Himachal Pradesh and Punjab in a ₹2,300 crore crypto Ponzi and MLM scam allegedly masterminded by Subhash Sharma, who fled the country in 2023.
The Supreme Court also denied bail in a ₹640 crore crypto scam case involving phishing and layered digital laundering. And separately, the Ahmedabad Police arrested a key suspect in a ₹100 crore crypto fraud where the accused had been booked under the MPID Act for running an investment office in Mumbai’s Dahisar area.
What makes the MPID Act significant for crypto cases?
The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, was originally enacted to protect middle-class and low-income investors from fraudulent financial schemes.
It allows the government to attach and auction properties of accused entities, and special courts can order quick distribution of recovered assets to depositors.
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the MPID Act overrides even Income Tax and PMLA claims when it comes to protecting depositors, which strengthens the case for investor recovery in fraud matters.
For crypto fraud cases specifically, the MPID Act has become an important tool. Since India still does not have a dedicated cryptocurrency law, enforcement agencies have been relying on existing statutes, including the MPID Act, IPC (now BNS), PMLA, and the IT Act, to go after crypto scammers.
Last year, the Madras High Court made a landmark ruling declaring cryptocurrency as “property” under Indian law, capable of being owned, possessed, and held in trust. That decision, combined with growing enforcement activity, suggests that the legal infrastructure around crypto crime prosecution in India is maturing, even in the absence of comprehensive legislation.
What happens next?
With the discharge plea rejected, the Jewria brothers will now face trial. Given that the EOW has already recovered approximately ₹65 crore in assets, the MPID Act framework could potentially enable distribution to investors, assuming they eventually come forward.
The case is being closely watched as a test of whether India’s existing legal framework can effectively prosecute early-era crypto frauds where the technology was poorly understood by both investors and law enforcement at the time.
As cryptocurrency adoption continues to grow in India and the regulatory framework evolves, the ATC Coin verdict serves as a reminder that the legal system is catching up, even if slowly. For investors, the message remains the same: if a crypto investment promises guaranteed returns, luxury rewards, and exchange listings that never materialize, it is almost certainly a scam.
Also Read: India’s Crypto Trap: Mumbra Man Duped of ₹71 Lakh Over 7 Months
