₹500 Crore Financial Trail Allegations Surface in Thane MPID Case.

The Thane MPID case has entered a significant phase after alleged fraudster Sagar Subodh Karivadekar was reportedly taken into custody by the Thane Economic Offences Wing following earlier proceedings in Sawantwadi. Investors visiting the EOW office to submit MPID claim forms also alleged the presence of individuals linked to the broader investigation, including alleged fraudster Priti Sachin Rane and others named in complaint documents. Complainants have cited transaction records allegedly showing multi-crore transfers connected to accounts under scrutiny in the wider alleged ₹500 crore investment fraud investigation. Authorities have not publicly issued final findings or established criminal liability.

Thane MPID Case Details: EOW Custody and Alleged ₹500 Crore Fund Trail Raise Fresh Questions

Fresh developments in the Thane MPID investigation have intensified scrutiny after investors questioned delayed arrests, alleged preferential treatment, and financial links connected to a wider alleged ₹500 crore investment fraud network.

The Thane MPID case has again drawn significant attention after sources confirmed that alleged fraudster Sagar Subodh Karivadekar was taken into custody by the Thane Economic Offences Wing between May 2 and 3, 2026.

This development followed his earlier arrest by Sawantwadi Police, who had secured three days of police custody on April 27, 2026, before judicial custody was reportedly granted on April 29, 2026.

According to investors visiting the Thane EOW office to submit MPID claim forms, alleged fraudster Priti Sachin Rane was allegedly seen within and around the investigation premises during recent proceedings.

Several investors additionally claimed that alleged fraudster Rekha Naresh More and alleged fraudster Saroj Sandip Kudrarkar were also present near the EOW office during multiple investor-related visits and procedural submissions.

Eyewitness accounts cited by complainants further suggested that separate rounds of questioning involving alleged fraudster Sagar Subodh Karivadekar and alleged fraudster Priti Sachin Rane were allegedly conducted inside EOW premises.

The investigation has attracted broader public attention after complainants linked the ongoing probe with a larger alleged ₹500 crore investment fraud currently under examination by authorities.

Investigative journalist and Sprouts News Editor-in-Chief Unmesh Gujarathi had earlier reported extensively on the alleged ₹500 crore investment scam and related financial trail allegations.

Financial Transaction Records Bring Multiple Individuals Under Scanner

Documents reviewed by complainants reportedly indicate substantial financial transfers from accounts linked to alleged fraudster Sagar Subodh Karivadekar toward persons associated with alleged fraudster Sachin Balkrishna Rane and alleged fraudster Priti Sachin Rane.

According to complainants, alleged fraudster Sachin Balkrishna Rane allegedly received approximately ₹10.13 crore through transactions now being questioned within the broader alleged investment fraud investigation.

Complainants further alleged that alleged fraudster Priti Sachin Rane received approximately ₹4.73 crore through transfers reflected in records reportedly submitted before investigating authorities and enforcement agencies.

Records cited by complainants also reportedly mention Late Naresh Narayan More and alleged fraudster Rekha Naresh More receiving approximately ₹8.76 crore through transactions presently falling under investigative scrutiny.

Additional beneficiaries named by complainants included Tanvi Surve, who allegedly received approximately ₹63.17 lakh through transactions linked to accounts associated with alleged fraudster Sagar Subodh Karivadekar.

The complaint material also reportedly named Suhas Balkrishna Rane, alleging transfers of approximately ₹48.30 lakh through financial channels now under examination by investigating agencies and complainant groups.

Complainants further alleged that the alleged fraudster Saroj Sandip Kudrarkar, Sandeep Ramchandra Kudrarkar, and Swaroop Sandeep Kudrarkar collectively received approximately ₹4.56 crore through transactions currently being questioned before authorities.

Another individual named in complaint documents was Shreyas Suresh Kerkar, who allegedly received approximately ₹2.97 crore through transfers linked to accounts associated with alleged fraudster Sagar Subodh Karivadekar.

Also Read: LUCC Scam Probe puts Myfledge Private Limited under Scanner.

Investor Concerns Intensify Over Arrest Delays and Investigation Procedure

Concerns among investors reportedly intensified following interactions with Investigating Officer Ravindra Mandlik regarding alleged delays in arresting alleged fraudster Sachin Balkrishna Rane and alleged fraudster Priti Sachin Rane.

According to investors, the investigating officer reportedly stated that the Rane couple would be arrested soon, although no official timeline regarding procedural developments has yet been publicly disclosed.

Several complainants questioned what they perceived as differential treatment despite allegations linked to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors framework and related legal representations.

Earlier, a senior EOW officer speaking to Sprouts News had reportedly stated that alleged fraudster Priti Sachin Rane had recently delivered a baby and legal action would proceed according to law.

Investors, however, continued raising questions regarding timelines, pointing out that the childbirth reportedly occurred in November 2025, months before the present stage of investigative proceedings and scrutiny.

Some complainants additionally questioned whether investigative authorities were strictly adhering to Supreme Court guidelines governing arrests, custodial interrogation, procedural safeguards, and discretionary powers exercised during investigations.

Sources further indicated that accused Sagar Subodh Karivadekar may soon be produced before the Thane Sessions Court for custody extension proceedings as investigators reportedly seek further custodial interrogation.

Ponzi-Style Allegations Continue to Surface in Expanding Investigation

Multiple complainants now suspect the operation functioned like a Ponzi-style structure where older payouts were allegedly funded through deposits collected from newer investors entering the disputed investment network.

Complainant Narayan Malusare alleged no genuine trading deployment occurred and urged authorities to investigate every beneficiary linked to transactions associated with the alleged fraudster Sagar Subodh Karivadekar’s accounts.

Investor Rajesh Uttekar further alleged that alleged fraudster Priti Sachin Rane conducted stock market training sessions and promotional interactions intended to attract additional investors into the disputed network structure.

Authorities have not yet issued any conclusive public findings regarding criminal liability, fund diversion, or the final scale of alleged financial irregularities connected with the broader investigation currently underway.

As the investigation progresses, investors continue seeking clarity, accountability, transparency, and detailed disclosure regarding arrests, financial recovery mechanisms, custodial developments, and the widening scope of scrutiny surrounding the alleged investment scam.

Readers Appeal

If you possess documents, bank records, transaction trails, agreements, screenshots, audio recordings, or evidence linked to the alleged ₹500 crore investment scam, you may confidentially contact Sprouts News. Investigative journalist and Editor-in-Chief Unmesh Gujarathi has reported extensively on multiple alleged fraud investigations. Verified information may be confidentially shared on 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.