Mumbai: A special MPID court recently ruled against adding as accused two persons who purchased a property for Rs 2.6 crore from two accused in an investment fraud case involving Cosmo Investment and Athena Investment. The court held that those whose involvement is not direct in managing the fraudulent financial establishments cannot be added as accused. “Even if the submission that respondent numbers 10 and 11 (purchasers) acted as agents of respondent numbers 1-7 (accused), they cannot be added as accused. Respondent numbers 10 and 11 are not directors of the firms. They are not persons responsible for the business or management of the business. The role of respondent numbers 10 and 11 is only that they paid Rs 2.60 crore out of the consideration amount to 34 investors on the instruction of respondent numbers 1 and 3. Thus, even if they are considered as agents, they cannot be added as accused,” Judge N G Shukla said.The plea was filed by one of the investors, Arvind Solanki (67), against the existing accused in the fraud case—Juhu residents Amit Masalia, Prakash Masalia, Dina Masalia, Payal Masalia and Mayank Doshi, Cosmo Investment and Athena Investment, as well as the property purchasers Jitendra Shah and Kirti Shah. Solanki claimed the transaction was fraudulent. Amit, Prakash, Dina, Payal and Doshi were involved in the two firms. They are accused of defrauding 42 investors by failing to return substantial investments along with promised lumpsum benefits and interest. The victims invested around Rs 22.37 crore. A case under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act was filed in 2018. Names of 15 depositors and their investments were revealed after the chargesheet was filed.During their anticipatory bail proceedings, the accused returned the invested amount to the original complainant and her relatives, leading to the grant of their bail. At that time, a property previously attached by the investigating officer was also released. This property is an office space in Andheri West. Shortly after, Amit and Prakash sold it for Rs 2.75 crore. After an initial payment of Rs 15 lakh, the remaining Rs 2.6 crore was paid directly to 34 investors, victims of the fraud. The advocate representing Solanki argued this property sale was a “mala fide transfer” aimed at circumventing asset attachment under the Act. It was contended the Shahs acted as agents for the original accused and committed fraud by selectively repaying certain investors, some of whom were not named in the original chargesheet. However, advocates representing the Shahs argued they legitimately purchased the property and fulfilled their payment obligations by settling debts with investors as instructed by original sellers.