9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2022 (copy enclosed) on the following bank accounts of M/s Code Payments India Private Limited i. Account No. 042-814954-001 maintained with HSBC Bank ii. Account No. 22105074914 maintained with SCB Bank iii. Account No. 715176009 maintained with CITI Bank iv. Account No. 055505010865 maintained with ICICI Bank v. Account No. 57500000994865 maintained with HDFC Bank Along with any other bank account / deposit account maintained by M/s CPIPL with the above banks. 2. Debit Freeze vide freezing order 23.09.2022 (copy enclosed) on all the Merchant IDs of M/s Code Payments India Private Limited maintained with following payment aggregators / payment gateways: Name of the Payment Aggregator /Payment Gateway Freecharge Payment Technologies Private Limited One 97 Communication India Ltd. Stripe India Private Limited PayZap/Rapyd (HDFC) One Mobikwik Systems Private Limited Rapyd Aggregator Network India Private Limited - Payzapp and Jio Money Paysense Consultancy Services India Private Limited (Lazy Pay) Paytm Payments Services Limited. Juspay Technologies Private Limited. 2. It is a case where an FIR was registered for the offence under Section 420 and Section 120-B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coda Shop, for digital token where interested person can buy those tokens. For the sale of these tokens in India, the Singapore Company raises invoices against the Indian company. The final beneficiary of the revenue generated through the sale of tokens in India is M/s Coda Payments Pte. Ltd. Singapore. Sh. Raymond Wijaya and Sh. Philippe Zean Yves Limes and Sh. Chandra Prathap are current directors of the company. At the time of incorporation Sh. Neil Frederic Davidson was director who was replaced by Sh. Raymond Wijaya. M/s Coda Payments India Private Limited has many prominent Games / apps like Garena Free Fire, Call on Duty, Teen Patti Gold etc. as its clients. One of its client Garena International Private Limited does not have any registered entity in India, therefore it signed an agreement with Coda Payments India Private Limited for providing payment services in India. Further Coda Payments India Private Limited made an agreement with Paytm and other payment gateways / aggregators for payment gateway services. Coda Payments India Private Limited (CPIPL) is acting as a medium between user and Garena International Private Limited and transferring funds to their parent compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Coda Singapore has come into picture. This itself shows that Coda India is not just an intermediary. The revenue collected by the company during the period 2018 to 2022 alone is 2850 Crore (approx) out of which an amount of 2320 crore (approx.) has already been sent outside India. It is not out of place to mention that the precious foreign exchange of the country and the hard earned money of the public is to be safeguarded and hence the Respondent is duty bound to take necessary steps. The only director who appeared before this department could not provide sufficient details and himself admitted that he only takes care of secretarial work. The Directors who actually make the decisions have not cooperated with the investigation. The non-cooperation of the company can clearly be ascertained from the below table which shows that the responsible persons of company's management have never appeared before this department even after multiple summons and reminder. S.N Name of Person Date of Summon Date of Appearance Appeared (Y/N) 1. Neil Frederic Davidson 29.06.2022 09.09.2022 13.09.2022 22.07.2022 12.09.2022 16.09.2022 N 2. Raymond Wijaya 29.06.2022 09. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r collecting money from the users and remitting it to the parent company. M/s CPIPL has been collecting money in the name of sale of digital content and remitting it to parent company in Singapore in the name of sale and purchase of digital content, however, the entire operations of Codashop which sells the tokens being managed by Coda Singapore only and there is no actual sale or purchase of digital content by CPIPL. * It is only a conduit to remit funds outside India. Till date the amount collected by CPIPL is Rs.2850 Crore, out of which,Rs.2265 Crore has been remitted outside India after retaining certain percentage of revenue for payment of taxes and nominal profits. * CPIPL does not decide the type of coins or digital content it can sell to its customers; it doesn't even decide the price at which such digital content is to be sold. All the directions are passed on from persons sitting outside India. * To prevent the company from alienating the Proceeds of Crime which it has collected through unauthorized deductions from the accounts of unsuspecting customers, all the bank accounts, merchant IDs in Payment gateways and Fixed Deposits of CPIPL (as mentioned in table at Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 10. The Counsel for the respondent contested the appeal on all the grounds. It was submitted that the allegations against the accused are serious. In fact Rs.2850 crores (approx) is involved in this case and out of which the appellant remain successful to transmit Rs.2320 crores(approx) outside India. It is, thus, not correct to state that the proceeds of crime involved in this matter is only of Rs. 25 lakhs while seizure involves an amount of Rs.100 crores. The calculation of proceeds of crime by the appellant is based on its own imagination. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the reason to believe was recorded by the Officer authorized by the Director and was sent to the Adjudicating Authority. The rules provide proforma of sending reason to believe in sealed envelope. It is, thus, not correct to state that no reason to believe was recorded in writing under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2002. Thus, even the second ground for challenge to the impugned order is not made out. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent, further, submitted that Adjudicating Authority has passed a detailed and reasoned order to confirm the seizure and to allow retention of rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India. The appellant company was keeping its ratio of profit. The appellant company otherwise failed to disclose source of Rs.100 crore in their account though required under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002 for which show cause notice was given by the Adjudicating Authority. In view of the above, first ground of challenge to the order is not made out. 17. It has come on record that reasons to believe were recorded under Section 20(1) of the Act of 2002. It was sent to the Adjudicating Authority and has been quoted by us. The procedure under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 was also followed. The reasons to believe under section 20(1) of the Act of 2002 were recorded in writing and forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority. It is, thus, not correct on the part of the appellant to state that the procedure given under section 20(1) of the Act of 2002 has been flouted. As per the rules applicable to the proceedings, the reasons to believe has to be sent to the Adjudicating Authority in the proforma given under the rules. The compliance of the aforesaid provisions has been made and while raising the issue, the appellant has failed to show basis for alleging the violation of Section 20(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd for that we can record our finding to cure the defect, if any. It is for the reasons that the appellant along with others cheated the public in general by evolving cyber fraud and therefore Cyber Police Station, Hyderabad registered 10 FIRs and in this case most of the victims were at the age of 10-16 years got involved in the game with the use of smartphone/laptop. It was designed in such a manner that one should participate in the game till the end to remain successful. 22. The Adjudicating Authority has cautiously recorded its finding and final word on commission of offence would be recorded by the Special Court trying the criminal case and in that eventuality the property would be confiscated to the Central Government. It is with the further opinion that if the Special Court trying the criminal case finds that the offence of money-laundering has not taken place, the property / document can be released. The Adjudicating Authority was thus cautious to record that the finding on commission of crime would be recorded by the Special Court trying the criminal case. 23. In view of the above and as is detailed modus of the Appellant's company getting involved in the case of money- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
