Mumbai, February 9 A court here has denied bail to Ukrainian actor Armen Ataian, who is being held in connection with the Torres investment fraud case, citing the "gravity of the offense" and the possibility of "fleeing the country".
Platinum Hern Pvt Limited, which operated the Torres brand, is accused of defrauding investors of approximately Rs 148.89 crore through a combination of Ponzi and multi-level marketing (MLM) schemes.
According to the prosecution, Ataian was part of a criminal conspiracy involving the company.
Additional Sessions Judge R B Rote dismissed Ataian's bail plea on February 5.
This was his second attempt to secure bail. His earlier plea was rejected because the investigation in the case was still ongoing.
Through his lawyer, Ataian stated that he was arrested on January 28, 2025, and has been in jail for over a year.
The defence stated that the investigation has been completed, and a chargesheet has been filed, claiming that the allegations against the Ukrainian national are based on "hearsay material".
The Mumbai police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW), which is investigating the case, opposed the bail, arguing that the accused hatched a criminal conspiracy and induced the complainant and other investors to invest in the company, assuring them of substantial returns.
The EOW alleged that Platinum Hern Pvt Ltd opened various jewellery showrooms in Mumbai and nearby areas and induced gullible members of the public to invest in moissanite stones.
If the money was invested in gold and diamonds, investors were assured that they would receive an immediate 2 per cent return and thereafter, receive interest at a rate of 6 per cent to 12 per cent every week, the investigation agency alleged.
It claimed that the company has made extensive 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 cases had been registered against the company.
It also noted that the main accused were still at large, and the investigation was ongoing.
"Therefore, considering the nature, gravity, seriousness, and large magnitude of the offense, 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 and tampering with the prosecution evidence".
The judge, while rejecting the plea, also stated that there was no substantial change in the circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application, except for the filing of the chargesheet against some accused.
