A Himachal Pradesh court has denied bail to Abhishek Sharma, a key figure in one of India’s largest cryptocurrency scams that defrauded over 80,000 investors of approximately $240 million. Justice Sushil Kukreja cited the “deep-rooted conspiracy” and “massive public loss” as primary reasons for continuing Sharma’s detention, which began in October 2023.
The elaborate scheme operated from 2018 to 2023 across Himachal Pradesh and neighboring states, ensnaring thousands—including over 1,000 police officers.
Think of it as a digital house of cards: investors were promised returns that seemed too good to be true (spoiler alert: they were), while behind the scenes, the accused allegedly manipulated crypto prices on platforms like Voscrow and Hypenext.
Sharma and his associates, including mastermind Subhash Sharma who has reportedly fled India, constructed a classic Ponzi structure—where yesterday’s investors are paid with today’s investments until the inevitable collapse.
They created an elaborate smokescreen of shell companies to launder proceeds and maintain the illusion of legitimacy.
Despite Sharma’s legal team arguing that his extended custody violated his Article 21 constitutional right to a speedy trial, the court determined that the severity and societal impact of the economic offense outweighed individual bail considerations.
The judiciary basically said: when 80,000 people lose their life savings, standard bail calculations need recalibration.
The court also emphasized that Sharma was responsible for managing investor gatherings in locations such as Una, Kullu, and Mandi to attract new victims.
The complaint that triggered the investigation was filed as an FIR in September 2023 by Arun Singh Guleria at Palampur police station.
The case has spotlighted significant regulatory gaps in India’s cryptocurrency landscape.
While digital assets promise financial democratization, without proper oversight they can become perfect vehicles for sophisticated fraud—like handing out Ferrari keys without driving lessons or speed limits.
This case illustrates why investors must remain vigilant about scams that exploit regulatory blind spots in emerging financial technologies.
Investigative challenges remain substantial, with authorities tackling a complex web of digital transactions and shell companies to trace stolen funds.
The court acknowledged that given the case’s complexity, a speedy trial remains unlikely—creating a tension between individual rights and public interest that continues to shape India’s approach to adjudicating major crypto-related crimes.
