TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....FIRs were registered with Imphal Police Station on 18.06.2022 for the offences under Section 120-B, 403, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was against the 23 officials of Lamjingba Group of Companies. It was alleged that Lamjingba Finance Company was operating a Ponzi Scheme that promised to the investors for exorbitant return in a short period of time. Lamjingba Finance Company projected itself be an investor in long term private investment which guaranteed the stability and safety of the invested amount. It promised a monthly simple interest rate of 3.5% for 2-year plans, 2% monthly interest rate for 6 months' plan and 2.5% for one year plan. The rate of interest was higher for 3-4 years' plan. The firm was operating in an unauthorized and unregulated deposits scheme and collected an amount of Rs. 600 crores from more than 15000 investors / depositors in the State of Manipur. The main person conducting the affairs of the firm was one Shri Sanasam Jacky Singh, Chief Managing Director-cum-Chairman of Lamjingba Group of Companies. 3. The investors invested in the Ponzi scheme where the company collected around Rs. 600 crores. However, when the investors could not get....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emic and therefore M/s Lamjingba Finance Company could not run the hospital properly and ultimately lease was cancelled in the year 2022. The appellant had returned the entire amount of security deposit to the Lamjingba Finance Company, yet property of equivalent value of Rs. 8 crores has been attached by the respondent. It is ignoring the fact that the appellant has already returned the entire amount of Rs. 8 Crores in three tranches out of which an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was invested with M/s Lamjingba Management Services Private Limited in the year 2019. Out of the remaining amount a sum of Rs. 5,87,15,000/- was paid to 62 victims investors between July, 2022 and September, 2022. 62 victims invested the money in the Ponzi scheme of Lamjingba Finance Company and since the part of the proceeds was given to the appellant in the shape of security deposit, the investors demanded refund of money for which they caused criminal acts and tried to damage the property. The appellant has to lodge an FIR against them. The amount of Rs. 5,87,15,000/- was paid to 62 investors on behalf of the accused company has not been accounted by the respondent - ED. 7. It was, further, submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s raised by the appellant to avoid repetition of one and the same facts and for the sake of brevity. Findings of the Tribunal: 12. In the opening paras of this order, I have referred the facts pertaining to the registration of 7 FIRs for commission of offence by the accused involved in Ponzi Scheme to invite the innocent investors with an assurance of high return under different schemes. Around 15000 investors invested their money. The total amount was of Rs. 600 crores. The FIRs were lodged by the investors and accordingly the investigation was caused by the Police followed by a charge-sheet. The ECIR was registered by the respondent - ED finding a case of predicate offence. During the course of investigation, they collected the evidence and for that even recorded the statements under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of the Act of 2002. It was revealed that out of Rs. 600 Crores, the main accused Shri Sanasam Jacky Singh had transferred a sum of Rs. 8 Crores to the appellant in the guise of lease-deed of M/s Langol View Charitable Clinic & Maternity Home. The name of the hospital was changed and it was kept in the name of the accused company. It is submitted that due to surge of Covi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re to repay the amount, they were creating nuisance in the hospital and around which forced the appellant to lodge an FIR and ultimately settled 62 victim investors with the payment of Rs. 5,87,15,000/-. Another amount of Rs. 2,12,76,710/- was spent by the appellant towards payment to doctors, medical equipment, pending power bill, due tax deduction at source, dues for hospitals, diagnostic centres, pharmacies etc. which remained unpaid by M/s Lamjingba Finance Group before cancellation of the lease-deed in the year 2022. According to the appellant, the entire amount of security deposit of Rs. 8 Crores was repaid. 15. Ld. Counsel for the respondent have contested the factual issue. 16. I find that the appellant is said to have paid a sum of Rs. 1.50 Crores on 12.06.2019 to M/s Lamjingba Management Services Private Limited as investment. 17. The lease deed was executed on 25.11.2019 while payment of Rs. 1.50 Crores is said to have invested by the appellant and his family. Thus, it cannot be considered to be a refund of the amount out of the security deposit. It is otherwise not made out in view of the statement of the appellant under Section 50(2) of the Act of 2002. The ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs 2 crore and the remaining amount of Rs 2 crore was adjusted as loan amount from Lamjingba Finance. Q6. Do you have any concrete plan to repay back the security deposit amount? Ans; In this regard an amount of Rs 1.50 crore is already deposited by me with the Lamjingba Finance in their deposit scheme. This invested amount is still with Lamjingba Group along with applicable interest due as promised by the group. However, at present I have not repay back any of the remaining due Security deposit amount., for which shall endeavour to make best personal effort to return back for which I require sufficient time to manage fund for the same. 18. It is apart from the fact that the amount said to have been reimbursed to the investors was not with the knowledge of Financial Company as agreed by the appellant, rather, it was alleged to have been reimbursed to the known persons by the appellant at his own. The receipt towards the payment has been enclosed without disclosure of the mode of the payment. If it was paid through cheques, the appellant should have given details of the cheques number and its receipt and if it was paid in cash then to disclose the source of cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en realizing that the statements of the appellant himself were recorded in the year 2002 where he did not make a reference of 62 investors, rather, shown his willingness to repay the amount of security after making proper arrangement. Subsequent generation of the receipt speaks against the appellant and cannot be trusted. 21. So far as the amount of Rs. 2,12,76,710/- is concerned, it is shown towards the payment to the doctors, medical equipments, pharmacies and sundry expenses which includes the payment towards the electricity charges. The appellant has placed on record the documents of various payments but are self-created documents. If the amount was paid by the appellant, he was required to disclose the source for payment and independent evidence for its receipt. A perusal of the electricity charge would reveal that the payment is of subsequent month to the cancellation of the lease-deed. Thus, it could not be taken towards the payment of due bills left unpaid by the accused company. The appellant has throughout referred to the payment in cash without any credible evidence to prove it. He could not clarify as to why the appellant made the payment to the doctors for the perio....