Mumbai Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to 81-Year-Old CA in Rs 2,575 Crore Foreign Remittance Fraud Case:

An 81-year-old Bengaluru-based chartered accountant, Seetaram Bhat, has been denied anticipatory bail by a Mumbai special court in an alleged Rs 2,575 crore foreign remittance fraud case. The court rejected his plea after observing that he had allegedly issued certificates without properly verifying the documents submitted by the companies.

According to the investigation, Bhat allegedly issued 163 Form 15CB certificates for eight companies, facilitating foreign remittances worth Rs 200.58 crore. The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) is investigating an alleged racket involving fraudulent overseas transfers of approximately Rs 2,575.83 crore and tax evasion. The accused allegedly established shell companies between FY 2021-22 and FY 2024-25 and used forged Form 15CB certificates to facilitate foreign remittances.

Seeking anticipatory bail, Bhat claimed that employees at his Mumbai office had misused his digital signature to issue the certificates. His lawyers submitted that he had practised as a chartered accountant for five decades, cooperated with investigators and provided the required documents. They also stated that he had filed a police complaint regarding the alleged misuse of his digital signature.

However, the prosecution opposed his plea, alleging that he had conspired with other accused persons and failed to verify the documents before issuing the certificates. It argued that his custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the transactions.

The court observed that Bhat had allegedly failed to properly examine the account books, agreements and other documents of the eight companies before issuing the certificates. It also questioned why he approached the police only after an offence had been registered against him, describing his complaint as an afterthought intended to create a defence.

The special court held that the material indicated his prima facie involvement in the alleged offence. It further observed that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the alleged fraud and that granting anticipatory bail could hamper the investigation. Accordingly, Justice Vikram R. Jagdale rejected his anticipatory bail application.