MUMBAI, Feb 9 : A court here has denied bail to Ukrainian actor Armen Ataian held in the Torres investment fraud case, citing “gravity of the offence” and the possibility of “fleeing the country”.
Platinum Hern Pvt Limited, which ran the Torres brand, is accused of cheating investors of approximately Rs 148.89 crores through a combination of Ponzi and multi-level marketing (MLM) schemes.
Ataian, as per the prosecution, was part of a criminal conspiracy involving the company.
Additional sessions judge R B Rote dismissed the actor’s bail plea on February 5.
This was his second attempt at securing bail. His earlier plea was rejected as the investigation in the case was still pending.
The accused, through his advocate, submitted that he was arrested on January 28, 2025 and has been in jail for over a year.
The investigation has been completed and a chargesheet has been filed, the defence stated, claiming that the allegation against the Ukrainian national was based on “hearsay material”.
The Mumbai police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW), which is probing the case, opposed the bail, contending that the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy and induced the complainant and other investors to invest in the company, assuring them of handsome returns.
The EOW alleged that Platinum Hern Pvt Ltd opened various jewellery showrooms in Mumbai and nearby areas and induced gullible public to invest in moissanite stones.
If the money is invested in gold and diamonds, the investors were assured that they would receive an immediate 2 per cent return and thereafter, get interest at the rate of 6 per cent to 12 per cent every week, the probe agency alleged.
It claimed that the company has made huge advertisements of various schemes and collected Rs 148.89 crore from 14,964 investors.
The court, in its order, pointed out that three other similar crimes had been registered against the company.
It also noted that the main accused were still absconding, and the investigation was in progress.
“Therefore, considering the nature, gravity, seriousness, large magnitude of the offence, and the larger interest of the society at this stage, it is not just and proper to exercise discretion and grant bail to the accused,” the court said.
It emphasised that “there is every possibility of fleeing away and tampering with the prosecution evidence”.
The judge, while rejecting the plea, also held that there was no substantial change in the circumstances since the rejection of first bail application, except filing of the chargesheet against some accused. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
