ED gets court nod to confiscate Thane flat in Yescube ₹9.30 crore fraud case
Synopsis
A Thane flat bought with investor money collected through fake investment schemes has been ordered confiscated by a Mumbai PMLA court — even before trial — because the two main accused remain absconding. The Yescube Infrastructure case, spanning over 15 years, shows how PMLA's pre-trial confiscation clause is increasingly being deployed when fraudsters flee justice.
Key Takeaways
The Special Court (PMLA), Mumbai ordered confiscation of a flat at Ghodbunder Road, Thane (West) on 18 July under Section 8(7) of the PMLA .
Yescube Infrastructure Ltd. allegedly collected approximately ₹27.92 crore from investors through fraudulent schemes; approximately ₹9.30 crore was identified as Proceeds of Crime.
The confiscated flat is valued at ₹1.25 crore ; a car worth ₹3 lakh was also attached earlier, bringing total attached assets to ₹1.28 crore .
Accused Sandeep Shukla and Manoj Shukla have been declared proclaimed offenders after absconding despite Non-Bailable Warrants.
The ED used the pre-trial confiscation provision of PMLA to secure the order given the accused's continued absence.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has secured an order from the Special Court (PMLA), Mumbai, to confiscate a flat in Thane (West) linked to a co-accused in a financial fraud case involving Yescube Infrastructure Ltd. The court's order, dated 18 July, directs that Flat No. 901, 9th Floor, Ruby Building, Regency Tower, Building No. 1, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (West) be transferred to the Central government as Proceeds of Crime under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Background of the Yescube Fraud
The case traces back to FIR No. 136/2010, registered on 8 April 2010, which was subsequently transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Mumbai and re-registered as C.R. No. 22/2010. The EOW filed a charge sheet on 13 March 2013 against four accused — Sandeep Lalbahadur Shukla, Manoj Lalbahadur Shukla, Sebastin Michael Pereira, and Nilesh Dattatrey Mhatre.
According to the ED, the accused jointly established Yescube Infrastructure Ltd., operating from a registered office in Borivali (West), Mumbai, with several branch offices across Maharashtra. They allegedly floated investment schemes through false newspaper advertisements, promising unrealistically high returns and tentative ownership of land or property without any viable business model.
How the Money Was Collected and Laundered
Investigation revealed that the accused operated bank accounts in the name of Yescube Infrastructure Ltd. across multiple banks, through which a total of approximately ₹27.92 crore was collected from investors. Of this, approximately ₹18.62 crore was repaid, leaving approximately ₹9.30 crore as wrongful gain — classified as the Proceeds of Crime.
A portion of cash withdrawn from these accounts was deposited into bank accounts held in the names of Manoj Shukla and Urmila Shukla. These funds were subsequently used to purchase the flat in Thane and a car in the name of their mother. The ED established that both assets were acquired directly from Proceeds of Crime, making them liable for attachment under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002.
Attachment and Legal Proceedings
The ED provisionally attached the flat and car on 11 October 2017, valuing the combined assets at ₹1.28 crore — the flat assessed at ₹1.25 crore and the car at ₹3 lakh. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment under Section 8(3) of the PMLA on 19 March 2018. A Prosecution Complaint was subsequently filed before the Special Court on 3 July 2018 as PMLA Special Case No. 12 of 2018.
Accused Absconding, Trial Separated
Despite the issuance of Proclamation Notices and Non-Bailable Warrants, Sandeep Shukla and Manoj Shukla continued to abscond. The Special Court, vide its order dated 8 August 2025, separated the trial against them and subsequently declared them proclaimed offenders. On 5 December 2025, the court framed charges against the remaining accused.
With the two absconding accused preventing the trial from commencing, the ED filed an application under Section 8(7) of the PMLA, 2002 — a provision that allows confiscation even before conclusion of trial in cases where accused remain fugitives. The Special Court allowed the application and ordered confiscation of the Thane flat in favour of the Directorate.
Significance of the Order
This confiscation order underscores the ED's use of PMLA's pre-trial confiscation mechanism as a tool to prevent fraudsters from benefiting from assets acquired through crime even when they evade the judicial process. This comes amid a broader push by enforcement agencies to recover investor funds lost in fraudulent infrastructure and investment schemes across Maharashtra. The case remains ongoing against the accused who have been charged.
Point of View
With Proclamation Notices and Non-Bailable Warrants failing to produce them. The asset confiscated is valued at ₹1.28 crore against a ₹9.30 crore Proceeds of Crime figure — meaning the bulk of investor losses remain unrecovered. Confiscation orders make headlines; actual restitution to defrauded investors rarely follows at the same pace. That accountability gap deserves as much scrutiny as the enforcement action itself.
NationPress
25 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Yescube Infrastructure fraud case?
Yescube Infrastructure Ltd. allegedly ran fraudulent investment schemes through false newspaper advertisements, promising high returns and property ownership without a viable business model. The company collected approximately ₹27.92 crore from investors across Maharashtra, of which approximately ₹9.30 crore was identified as wrongful gain and classified as Proceeds of Crime under the PMLA.
What has the Special Court ordered in this case?
The Special Court (PMLA), Mumbai, vide its order dated 18 July, directed the confiscation of Flat No. 901, Ruby Building, Regency Tower, Ghodbunder Road, Thane (West) to the Central government. The order was passed under Section 8(7) of the PMLA, which permits confiscation before trial when accused remain absconding.
Why were Sandeep Shukla and Manoj Shukla declared proclaimed offenders?
Both accused absconded despite the issuance of Proclamation Notices and Non-Bailable Warrants. The Special Court separated their trial on 8 August 2025 and subsequently declared them proclaimed offenders, allowing the ED to pursue confiscation proceedings independently of the main trial.
What assets were attached in this case?
The ED provisionally attached a flat in Thane (West) valued at ₹1.25 crore and a car valued at ₹3 lakh on 11 October 2017, for a combined value of ₹1.28 crore. These assets were established to have been purchased using funds derived from the Proceeds of Crime.
What is Section 8(7) of the PMLA and why does it matter here?
Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 allows a Special Court to order confiscation of attached properties even before the conclusion of trial, provided the accused remains a proclaimed offender. In this case, the ED invoked this provision because Sandeep Shukla and Manoj Shukla continued to evade arrest, preventing the trial from beginning.
