Investors demand CBI inquiry and asset attachment in ₹500 Crore Share Market Investment Fraud.

₹500 Crore Share Market Investment Fraud: Legal Scrutiny Intensifies in Maharashtra Mega Scam

Exclusive: The ₹500 Crore Share Market Investment Fraud in Maharashtra is facing intensified legal scrutiny, with over 1,200 investors demanding action under the IPC, MPID Act and SEBI regulations. Complainants allege funds were mobilised through promises of assured returns, raising questions about unauthorised deposit schemes and securities violations. An FIR has been registered, but investors are seeking stricter charges and provisional asset attachment to prevent fund diversion. Representations have also been submitted to senior state authorities requesting an independent investigation into the alleged mega scam.

The alleged ₹500 crore share market investment fraud is now under legal examination for potential violations involving cheating, criminal breach of trust, and unlawful deposit mobilisation.

Complainants assert that the accused induced investments through representations of assured returns, which may constitute dishonest inducement under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, if proven.

Sprouts News sources allege that enforcement authorities in Thane have failed to invoke stringent deposit protection laws. They further claim that influential political backing has delayed decisive action against the accused individuals.

Eknath Shinde, the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra, is the current Guardian Minister of Thane district. The allegations reference Eknath Shinde, asserting that agencies such as the Economic Offences Wing remain passive due to political influence. However, no official findings currently substantiate these claims.

Sprouts News sources indicate that representations have been submitted to enforcement authorities seeking invocation of special legislation meant to safeguard depositors against financial establishments engaged in default or fraud.

The allegations reference Eknath Shinde in the context of purported political shielding. At present, no judicial or statutory authority has established culpability or interference.

A formal representation has also been submitted to Devendra Fadnavis, requesting registration of offences under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act and transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The complaint asserts that more than ₹500 crore was mobilised through an organised share market investment structure presented as secure and high-yielding.

To view the related case copy – click here

Potential Offences Under IPC, MPID Act, and SEBI Regulatory Framework

The accused named in complaints include Sachin Balkrishna Rane, Priti Sachin Rane, and Sagar Subodh Karivdekar. They are alleged to have promoted guaranteed profits from stock market trading operations.

Under Indian securities law, no individual or entity may lawfully guarantee fixed returns from equity trading without proper registration and regulatory approval.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India requires mandatory registration for portfolio managers, investment advisers, and operators of collective investment schemes. Non-compliance may attract civil and criminal consequences.

If funds were mobilised from the public without statutory authorisation, the activity may fall within the ambit of unauthorised deposit schemes or fraudulent investment operations.

Complainants allege that funds were collected through digital communications, investor meetings, and written agreements. Such documentation may serve as evidentiary material in determining criminal intent.

Investors further allege default in repayment obligations. If established, such conduct could attract Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal breach of trust.

An FIR numbered 0017 of 2026 has been registered at Amboli Police Station. However, complainants contend that offences under the MPID Act have not yet been invoked.

Sprouts News legal experts observe that early application of the MPID Act permits provisional attachment of movable and immovable assets to prevent dissipation or alienation of property.

Allegations of Inaction, Political Influence, and Demand for CBI Probe

Complainants allege that authorities in Thane, including the Economic Offences Wing, have not registered offences under the MPID Act despite repeated representations.

The reference to Eknath Shinde in the complaint is framed as an allegation of political shielding. These assertions remain unproven and are subject to legal scrutiny.

If any public servant is found to have wilfully neglected statutory duties, issues of administrative accountability and possible misconduct may arise under service law and constitutional principles.

Some investors allege intimidation and attempts to discourage the filing of complaints. If substantiated, such conduct could attract provisions relating to criminal intimidation and obstruction of justice.

The demand for a CBI investigation is premised on ensuring an impartial, independent, and fair investigation in accordance with established legal standards.

Constitutional jurisprudence recognises that transfer of investigation may be considered where reasonable apprehension of bias or conflict of interest is demonstrated.

Also Read: India AI Impact Summit 2026 Robotics Claim Sparks Debate.

Related News: Maharashtra shaken by investment fraud as accused go free.

Related News: ₹180 Cr Stock Market Scam: Thane Couple Under EOW Probe.

Media Liability and Regulatory Examination

Allegations have also been made regarding promotional content aired by Zee News, TV9, and Saam TV in connection with the investment scheme.

Names including Subhash Chandra, Krishna Reddy, and Abhijit Pawar have been referenced in representations submitted by complainants. These references remain allegations and have not been adjudicated.

Any potential liability of media entities would depend on proof of paid programming, financial nexus, and knowledge of alleged misrepresentation.

Regulatory scrutiny, if initiated, may involve examination under broadcasting guidelines, advertising disclosure norms, and securities law provisions relating to inducement and unfair trade practices.

At present, no judicial authority has determined wrongdoing on the part of the named broadcasters or individuals.

Broader Legal Implications for Investor Protection

The Mega Scam highlights the importance of statutory safeguards such as the MPID Act in protecting depositors from fraudulent financial establishments.

Timely registration of cognisable offences and prompt attachment of assets are central to preserving evidentiary integrity and enabling restitution.

Failure to invoke statutory mechanisms at an early stage may complicate asset tracing and recovery proceedings.

Sprouts News Special Investigation Team continues to examine official responses and documentary materials. Senior investigative journalist Unmesh Gujarathi has reviewed complaint records connected to this matter.

Individuals possessing verified documentary evidence relevant to this case may confidentially share information on 9322755098. Identity protection will be ensured in accordance with journalistic and legal standards.

The outcome of this matter will depend on statutory interpretation, evidentiary findings, and adherence to due process. The case may significantly influence the enforcement landscape for financial fraud in Maharashtra.