The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has searched 20 premises across Mumbai, Pune, Mehsana, Surat and Hyderabad as part of a money-laundering investigation into an alleged online betting and cyber-fraud network linked to the platforms All Panel Exchange and MGM91. The searches were conducted on October 13, 2026, by the agency’s Mumbai Zone-II unit under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The ED announced the action on October 17, reporting that documents, digital devices and other material had been seized and multiple bank accounts linked to suspected entities and individuals had been frozen.
Investigators are examining how money allegedly collected from people using the betting platforms moved through a network of bank accounts and payment intermediaries before being diverted. The probe focuses on Pune-based Edsom Fintech Pvt Ltd and its payment intermediary platform, iPaisa, which the ED alleges was used to onboard more than 200 shell or front entities. The agency is also investigating suspected overseas links and alleged methods used to move funds outside India. These allegations remain under investigation and should not be treated as established criminal findings.
Key Takeaways
- 20 premises searched: The ED conducted searches across Mumbai, Pune, Mehsana, Surat and Hyderabad.
- Platforms under investigation: The case involves alleged fraud linked to All Panel Exchange and MGM91.
- Payment intermediary: Investigators are examining Edsom Fintech and its iPaisa platform.
- More than 200 entities: The ED alleges that shell or front companies were used to facilitate transactions.
- Accounts frozen: Multiple bank accounts connected to suspected entities and individuals were frozen under the PMLA.
- Suspected overseas movement: Investigators are examining allegedly disguised trade remittances, cash withdrawals and cryptocurrency transfers.
- Investigation ongoing: Edsom Fintech founder Ram U. Ramdhani was previously arrested and is reported to remain in judicial custody.
Where Did the ED Conduct the Searches?
The ED’s latest operation covered five cities across western and southern India. The agency’s Mumbai unit conducted the searches as part of a wider investigation into the alleged collection, movement and concealment of proceeds connected to online betting and cyber fraud.
| City | State | Search operation |
|---|---|---|
| Mumbai | Maharashtra | Premises searched |
| Pune | Maharashtra | Premises searched |
| Mehsana | Gujarat | Premises searched |
| Surat | Gujarat | Premises searched |
| Hyderabad | Telangana | Premises searched |
The ED reported 20 premises searched across the five cities. A complete city-by-city breakdown of the premises was not established in the reports cited here.
During the operation, officials seized documents, digital devices and other material they believe could help trace the movement of suspected proceeds of crime. Multiple bank accounts associated with the entities and individuals under investigation were also ordered frozen under the PMLA.
The searches followed earlier enforcement action at locations in Pune, Mumbai and Bengaluru in the same case. The latest operation indicates that investigators are examining a network that allegedly extends beyond the operators of the betting platforms to intermediaries and entities involved in processing transactions.
What Are All Panel Exchange and MGM91?
All Panel Exchange and MGM91 are the online betting and gaming platforms at the centre of the current investigation.
According to the ED’s account, the case stems from two underlying criminal complaints in which people were allegedly encouraged to deposit money on the platforms and were subsequently cheated. The agency is investigating the financial trail associated with the alleged offences and whether money obtained from victims was moved through intermediaries to conceal its origin.
Online betting-related investigations can involve several layers of transactions. Money may move from users to payment channels, then through bank accounts associated with operators, agents or intermediary businesses. Investigators examine these relationships to determine who controlled the accounts, who benefited from the transactions and whether the funds represented proceeds of unlawful activity.
In this case, the ED alleges that the proceeds associated with the platforms were routed through multiple bank accounts before reaching a Pune-based entity established by Ram U. Ramdhani.
The investigation is also examining the alleged role of people described as channel partners or carry-and-forward agents. These labels refer to intermediaries said to have helped facilitate transactions or coordinate operations. Their precise responsibilities and potential legal exposure depend on the evidence gathered by investigators.
The platforms’ inclusion in the investigation does not, by itself, establish that every user, employee, payment provider or associated business was involved in wrongdoing.
Why Edsom Fintech and iPaisa Are Under Scrutiny
A central part of the investigation concerns Edsom Fintech Pvt Ltd, a Pune-based company founded by Ram U. Ramdhani.
The ED alleges that Edsom developed and operated an in-house payment intermediary called iPaisa. Investigators say the platform was used to onboard more than 200 shell or front entities, described internally as merchants, to facilitate transactions for online gaming, betting and cyber-fraud operators and their agents.
Payment intermediaries can provide technology that connects businesses with payment channels and helps process transactions. Their legitimate commercial role can include managing payment flows, integrating services and coordinating settlements.
The regulatory question in this case is whether the intermediary and associated entities were allegedly used to move funds generated through fraudulent activity or to disguise the identities of the people receiving the money.
The ED is examining the relationships between Edsom, iPaisa, the alleged betting operators and the entities used to process transactions. Investigators will need to establish how each entity operated, who controlled it, what services it provided and whether it knowingly participated in any unlawful activity.
The figure of more than 200 alleged shell or front entities highlights the scale of the network described by investigators. However, the existence of a large number of companies in a payment network does not automatically prove that every entity was fictitious or criminally involved. Their status and role must be assessed using evidence.
How the Alleged Money-Laundering Network Worked
The ED has identified several suspected routes through which money was allegedly collected, transferred and moved outside India. The agency is investigating whether these methods were used to obscure the origin and destination of funds linked to the betting platforms.
1. Routing money through mule bank accounts
Investigators allege that funds were transferred through a network of mule bank accounts before being routed to other entities.
A mule account is a bank account used to receive or transfer money on behalf of others, sometimes to disguise the true source or beneficiary of a transaction. Such accounts may be controlled by the people behind a scheme or operated using account holders who do not fully understand the transactions taking place.
In the alleged network, investigators are examining how the accounts were opened, who controlled them, which businesses received the money and how transactions were connected to the betting platforms.
The ED has also alleged that certain cooperative banks provided infrastructure used to collect and layer the suspected proceeds. The reports cited do not identify those banks, and the allegation should not be interpreted as establishing wrongdoing by the cooperative banking sector as a whole.
2. Disguising transfers as trade payments
The agency alleges that some funds were moved through remittances presented as legitimate trade transactions involving over-invoicing.
Over-invoicing occurs when the value stated on an invoice exceeds the genuine value of the goods or services supplied. Investigators in financial crime cases may examine whether inflated invoices were used to justify transfers that would otherwise appear inconsistent with a company’s business activity.
In this investigation, the ED suspects that disguised trade payments were one route through which money was moved outside India. Establishing the allegation would require examination of invoices, underlying transactions, counterparties and the actual movement of funds.
3. Cash withdrawals and cryptocurrency
The ED is also investigating alleged cash withdrawals from mule accounts opened in the names of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) units. Investigators suspect that these accounts were used to withdraw money and obscure the trail linking it to the original transactions.
Another suspected route involved converting funds into cryptocurrency before transferring them outside India. Cryptocurrency transactions can create additional investigative challenges when funds move through multiple wallets, exchanges or jurisdictions.
However, cryptocurrency is not inherently illegal, and the use of a digital asset does not alone prove money laundering. Investigators must establish the source of the funds, the transactions involved and the connection to any underlying offence.
| Alleged route | What investigators are examining |
|---|---|
| Mule bank accounts | How money was collected, transferred and concealed |
| Disguised trade remittances | Whether invoices overstated the value of genuine trade |
| Cash withdrawals | Whether accounts linked to APMC units were used to obscure funds |
| Cryptocurrency transfers | Whether suspected proceeds were converted and moved offshore |
These are allegations reported by the ED, not final judicial findings.
Dubai Links and the International Dimension
The ED has alleged that several people involved in operating the betting platforms were being directed by individuals based in Dubai.
The agency is examining the alleged controllers of the platforms and the entities used to route the suspected proceeds of crime. The overseas dimension may require investigators to establish ownership, trace transactions across jurisdictions and determine who exercised control over the businesses and accounts involved.
Cross-border financial investigations can be complex because the relevant companies, bank accounts, payment intermediaries and individuals may operate in different jurisdictions. Investigators may need to reconstruct transaction histories and establish links between domestic deposits and overseas recipients.
The reported Dubai connection does not establish that every person or business in the location was involved. Any individual or entity’s responsibility must be determined from evidence and the applicable legal process.
What Has Happened to the Suspected Funds?
The ED has seized documents, digital devices and other material during the latest searches. It has also ordered multiple bank accounts linked to suspected entities and individuals to be frozen under the PMLA.
Freezing an account is a measure that can prevent money from being withdrawn or transferred while an investigation proceeds. It is distinct from a final confiscation order or a court’s determination that the money represents proceeds of crime.
The immediate significance of the action is that investigators can preserve potentially relevant financial assets and records while tracing the alleged movement of funds. Digital devices may also contain communications, transaction records and other evidence that could help establish the relationships between the people and entities under scrutiny.
Ram U. Ramdhani, the founder of Edsom Fintech, was previously arrested in connection with the investigation and is reported to remain in judicial custody. His arrest is part of the ongoing legal process and does not, by itself, establish guilt.
The ED has not announced a final conclusion in the case. Further investigation is required to determine the full amount of suspected proceeds, the roles of individual entities and whether additional legal action is warranted.
Why the Case Matters for Payment Companies and Online Platforms
The investigation highlights the importance of financial controls in businesses that process payments for online services.
Payment intermediaries can serve legitimate businesses, but investigators and regulators may examine whether customer checks, merchant onboarding procedures and transaction monitoring are sufficient to detect suspicious activity.
The alleged use of more than 200 front entities raises questions about how the entities were verified, who controlled them and whether transaction patterns were consistent with their stated business activities. These questions are relevant to payment providers, banks and online platforms because weak controls can make it harder to identify the ultimate beneficiaries of transactions.
The case also illustrates the distinction between a platform’s user-facing activity and the financial infrastructure behind it. A betting website may accept deposits through several intermediaries, while the underlying payment trail passes through companies that users never interact with directly.
Investigators therefore examine not only the platform itself but also the businesses, accounts and payment arrangements that may have helped move the money.
For legitimate payment companies, robust customer due diligence, merchant verification, recordkeeping and monitoring can help identify suspicious transactions and reduce the risk of their services being misused. The exact obligations depend on the entity’s regulatory status and applicable law.
The Bigger Picture
The ED’s searches show how an investigation into alleged online betting fraud can expand into a broader examination of payment networks, shell entities, bank accounts and cross-border transfers. The focus on Edsom Fintech and iPaisa indicates that investigators are looking beyond the betting platforms to understand how money was allegedly collected, routed and concealed.
The case remains an allegation-driven investigation, not a final judgment on the people or companies involved. The seizure of records and freezing of accounts can help preserve evidence, but the ultimate legal outcome will depend on the evidence, further proceedings and any findings made by the courts. For payment businesses and online platforms, the investigation reinforces the importance of controls that help establish who is receiving money and whether transactions match the stated purpose of an account.
Looking Ahead
The ED is expected to continue examining the financial trail connected to All Panel Exchange, MGM91, Edsom Fintech and the entities allegedly used to route transactions. Investigators will need to establish the roles of the intermediaries, identify the ultimate beneficiaries of the suspected proceeds and determine whether the alleged overseas transfers can be substantiated. Further searches, account-related action or legal proceedings may follow if supported by the investigation.
For now, the key developments are the 20 searches, the seizure of documents and digital devices, the freezing of multiple bank accounts and the ongoing proceedings involving the previously arrested Edsom Fintech founder. Any further claims about the scale of the fraud, the involvement of additional individuals or the recovery of funds should be based on subsequent official disclosures or court records rather than speculation.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why did the ED raid 20 locations?
The ED searched 20 premises as part of a money-laundering investigation into alleged online betting and cyber fraud linked to All Panel Exchange and MGM91. The searches were conducted across five cities on October 13, 2026.
2. Which cities were covered by the raids?
The searches took place in Mumbai, Pune, Mehsana, Surat and Hyderabad.
3. What is Edsom Fintech’s alleged role in the case?
The ED alleges that Edsom Fintech developed and operated iPaisa, a payment intermediary platform used to onboard more than 200 shell or front entities connected to betting, gaming and cyber-fraud operators.
4. What did the ED seize or freeze?
The agency seized documents, digital devices and other material evidence. It also ordered multiple bank accounts linked to suspected entities and individuals to be frozen under the PMLA.
5. How were the suspected funds allegedly moved?
The ED is investigating the alleged use of mule bank accounts, trade remittances involving over-invoicing, cash withdrawals from accounts linked to APMC units and cryptocurrency transfers.
6. Has anyone been convicted in the case?
The reports cited describe an ongoing investigation. Ram U. Ramdhani was previously arrested and is reported to remain in judicial custody, but the information available does not establish a final court judgment finding the accused guilty.
Get the day’s top stories in your inbox
One concise email. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
