The special MPID court on Friday rejected the bail pleas of Ukrainian actor Armen Ataine and Mohammad Tausif Riyaz, the prime accused in the case. However, the detailed order will be made available later.
In his plea, Ataine claimed that he was approached by other Ukrainian nationals to assist them in setting up a jewelry store in Mumbai. Accordingly, he stated that he had arranged their meeting with Riyaz and that his role was limited to introducing the two parties.
Ataine further asserted that he had no involvement with the firm, as he was neither a director nor a promoter of the company and was not engaged in any activities related to the Torres store.
Meanwhile, in his bail plea, Riyaz claimed that he had alerted authorities about the ongoing fraud before the scam was reported. He alleged that some Ukrainian nationals had sought his help in setting up a jewelry business in India and had asked him to assist in arranging facilities. Riyaz stated that he worked as a consultant at the store.
On January 4, he reportedly emailed multiple authorities, including Mumbai Police, Thane Police, Navi Mumbai Police, SEBI, and RBI, raising concerns about Torres. He claimed to have provided evidence that ₹200 crore in illegal cash was collected, converted into cryptocurrency, and transferred abroad.
He further alleged that authorities had already issued multiple notices to Torres in June, October, and November, indicating prior knowledge of the wrongdoing.
Earlier, on Monday, the special court had also rejected the bail plea of Uzbekistan national Tazagul Khasatova, alias Tazagul Karaxanovna Xasatova.
In its detailed order, the court stated, “The circumstances indicate that the applicant is aware of the promoters based in Russia and Ukraine. She had worked for Russian and Ukrainian promoters to induce investors to invest their money in the fraudulent scheme of the accused company.”
The court further remarked, “If the applicant is released on bail, the possibility of her absconding at this stage of the proceedings cannot be ruled out. The applicant is a flight risk, being a foreigner residing in India. Granting her bail at this stage would affect the investigation of the case. This court is not inclined to release the accused on bail.”
