The FashionTV franchise fraud case has come under investigation after Uttar Pradesh Police arrested three individuals in Mumbai over a multi-crore scam targeting entrepreneurs. Authorities allege that the accused used the Fashion TV brand to offer fake franchise deals across India, collecting significant fees without valid authorisation. Investigators are examining financial transactions, digital communications, and identity records to trace the full extent of the network. The case highlights risks associated with brand misuse, lack of verification in franchise agreements, and the need for stronger regulatory oversight to protect investors and small business owners.
- FashionTV franchise fraud case: UP Police bust multi-crore scam, three arrested in Mumbai
- Alleged mastermind posed as Fashion TV India’s MD’
- Operational role and identity data collection
- Financial network and commission structure
- How the alleged franchise scam operated
- Stamp paper mismatch raises key legal concerns
- Previous investigation under scrutiny
- Wider network, earlier arrest, and GST action
- What happens next in the Fashion TV fraud case
- Previous controversies linked to Kashiff Khan and Fashion TV
FashionTV franchise fraud case: UP Police bust multi-crore scam, three arrested in Mumbai
Authorities say a fake “Managing Director” used the global Fashion TV brand to dupe entrepreneurs across India, exposing a years-long organised franchise fraud network.
The Fashion TV franchise fraud case has come under scrutiny after Uttar Pradesh Police dismantled a multi-crore scam involving fake franchise deals, arresting three accused from Mumbai on January 1, 2026.
Acting on FIR No. 0842/2025 registered at Ramgarhtaal police station in Gorakhpur, Inspector Ashutosh Rai led an inter-state operation targeting a syndicate allegedly defrauding entrepreneurs using the FashionTV brand.
Police confirmed that one female accomplice escaped during the raid and remains absconding, while further investigations are ongoing across multiple states to identify additional victims and financial trails.
Alleged mastermind posed as Fashion TV India’s MD’
According to investigators, Kashiff Khan presented himself as the Managing Director of FashionTV India, signing nearly 180 franchise agreements despite never being officially appointed as a company director.
Records from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs revealed no DIR-12 filing in his name, indicating he held no legal authority to execute agreements on behalf of Fashion TV India Private Limited.
Police allege that victims believed they were dealing with a legitimate corporate executive, while in reality, agreements were executed by an unauthorised individual using fabricated credentials and branding.
To view a copy of the FIR related to Fashion TV – Click Here
Operational role and identity data collection
Another accused, Krishna, reportedly acted as the operations head and coordinated interactions with victims, including collecting Aadhaar, PAN, GST certificates, and partnership documents from applicants.
Investigators say this process amounted to identity harvesting, with victims later alleging delays and evasions when requesting copies of franchise agreements despite having paid significant fees.
In one interaction cited by police, Krishna allegedly asserted autonomy in decision-making, stating she worked directly for the FTV brand and not under instructions from other individuals.
Financial network and commission structure
The third accused, Naveen Ahuja, is believed to have managed the syndicate’s finances, with WhatsApp evidence suggesting a structured commission system distributing approximately 3% of collected franchise fees.
Authorities said multiple payment channels, including accounts linked to Axis Bank, State Bank of India, and Federal Bank, were used to complicate tracing of funds and obscure transaction trails.
This multi-layered financial structure indicates a coordinated operation rather than isolated fraud, with investigators examining bank records and digital evidence to map the full extent of transactions.
How the alleged franchise scam operated
Police allege the group targeted aspiring entrepreneurs in tier-2 and tier-3 cities, offering franchise opportunities for FashionTV-branded bars, salons, or lounges with fees ranging from ₹12.5 lakh to ₹25 lakh.
Victims were reportedly invited to a Mumbai office in Bandra Kurla Complex, shown presentations, and assured official brand affiliation, creating a perception of legitimacy and corporate backing.
However, investigators say agreements were forged, signatures fabricated, and documentation prepared using misleading or incorrect corporate identities, raising serious questions about authenticity.
Also Read: Bhim Army Seeks CBI Probe into Harmony Foundation.
Related News: Bombay High Court Says No More Franchisees for FTV in Lucknow.
Stamp paper mismatch raises key legal concerns
A critical piece of evidence involves franchise agreements prepared on stamp paper purchased under “FashionTV India,” a partnership firm, while contracts were issued under a separate private limited company name.
Officials noted that the stamp paper did not legally belong to either contracting party, and company-side signatures were missing entirely, suggesting the agreements may have been fabricated from inception.
Complainants, including Rakesh Singh and Juhi Singh, have reportedly stated that signatures attributed to them were forged, further strengthening allegations of document manipulation.
Previous investigation under scrutiny
The case has also raised concerns about earlier investigative handling, with allegations that former Sub-Inspector Ram Singh acted in favour of the accused by altering FIR details and unfreezing accounts.
Following complaints, authorities reassigned the case to Inspector Ashutosh Rai, whose subsequent action led to the recent arrests and renewed progress in the investigation.
A separate inquiry into the conduct of the former investigating officer is reportedly underway, though officials have not publicly confirmed disciplinary outcomes.
Wider network, earlier arrest, and GST action
Another accused, Vaibhav Mani Tripathi, is already in judicial custody in Gorakhpur, with his bail application rejected by a sessions court citing the seriousness of the alleged organised offence.
Investigators have identified approximately 50 victims across multiple states, with the syndicate believed to have been active since 2014 using similar methods to solicit franchise investments.
Complaints filed with GST authorities have reportedly resulted in penalty notices of around ₹7 crore against the associated entity, indicating potential financial irregularities beyond the fraud allegations.
What happens next in the Fashion TV fraud case
The arrested accused were produced before the Bandra Metropolitan Magistrate Court for transit remand and are expected to be transferred to Gorakhpur for further questioning and legal proceedings.
Authorities have urged individuals who may have been affected by similar franchise offers under FashionTV or related entities to file complaints through official channels, including the cybercrime portal.
As reported by Sprouts News, investigators are also examining possible links between the accused and any authorised representatives of the global FashionTV brand to determine accountability and jurisdictional implications.
The case highlights growing risks in franchise-based investments and underscores the need for due diligence, as law enforcement agencies continue to expand their probe into the alleged nationwide fraud network.
Previous controversies linked to Kashiff Khan and Fashion TV
Kashiff Khan, associated with FashionTV India operations, has been involved in multiple controversies over the years, ranging from financial disputes to serious criminal allegations, though several claims remain contested or under investigation.
1. ₹142 crore fraud allegations and EOW probe (2024)
Mumbai’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) initiated a preliminary enquiry against Kashiff Khan following a complaint alleging fraud and cheating worth approximately ₹142 crore linked to franchise dealings.
The complainant firm, Indus Lexus Consulting Pvt Ltd, claimed Khan sold FashionTV franchises and failed to pay agreed royalties and dues, while Khan denied the allegations and questioned the complainant’s authority.
2. Alleged involvement in the cruise drugs party controversy (2021)
During the Mumbai cruise drug case, NCP leader Nawab Malik publicly named Kashiff Khan, alleging links to the event and claiming he was connected to drug, sex, and pornography rackets.
Khan denied all accusations, stating he had no role in organising the party and that the allegations were false and based on misinformation.
3. Sexual assault allegations (2021)
An FIR was registered by Mumbai’s Oshiwara police against Kashiff Khan based on a complaint by a colleague accusing him of stalking and rape.
The case involved multiple allegations of misconduct during work-related travel and meetings; Khan sought legal relief, and the matter proceeded through legal channels.
4. Cheating and investment dispute case (₹1.51 crore)
In another case, an FIR was reportedly filed at Bandra police station in connection with an alleged ₹1.51 crore cheating case involving investment promises that did not materialise.
The complaint accused multiple individuals, including Kashiff Khan, of breach of trust and financial deception, though the case details remain subject to investigation and legal scrutiny.
• Investigative inputs and public outreach
Investigative journalist Unmesh Gujarathi has independently examined multiple aspects of the alleged franchise scam, contributing to a deeper understanding of its operations and victim impact across regions.
Individuals with relevant information or potential links to the case can reach out directly at 9322755098.
Editorial Note:
This article is based on publicly available FIR records, court case references, and reports published by multiple media organisations. The information is presented in the context of ongoing investigations and public interest reporting. Sprouts News does not make any judicial determination regarding the individuals mentioned and does not intend to defame any person or organisation. Any individual seeking clarification or wishing to provide an official response may contact the editorial team with verifiable documentation. The information is presented for journalistic and informational purposes.
