WinZo Games co-founder Saumya Rathore has moved the Karnataka High Court against the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering probe being conducted from Bengaluru. She has argued that since all company operations and bank accounts are based in Delhi, the investigation and court proceedings must be shifted there.
The co-founder and director of WinZo Games Pvt Ltd, Saumya Rathore, has approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) decision to conduct a money laundering investigation against the online gaming platform and its representatives from Bengaluru.
In her plea, Rathore has argued that the ED’s investigation and all related court proceedings should be conducted in Delhi and not in Bengaluru. She has stated that WinZo’s main operations, bank accounts, employees, and business activities are all based in Delhi, and therefore, the matter has no real connection with Karnataka.
The case was taken up for preliminary hearing by Justice M Nagaprasanna, who heard initial arguments from both sides and posted the matter for further hearing on January 14. The Court also issued a direction restraining the ED from taking any coercive action against Rathore until the next date of hearing.
The Court said,
“List on 14th. Respondent shall not precipitate the matter qua the petitioner till then,”
Appearing for Rathore, Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya submitted that the ED should have initiated and continued its probe in Delhi, since all relevant aspects of the case are located there.
He pointed out that WinZo’s registered office, financial accounts, and workforce are all based in Delhi, and there is no substantive reason for the investigation to be carried out from Bengaluru.
He further informed the Court that several bank accounts linked to the company have been frozen in Delhi, and all alleged transactions have taken place there. Questioning the ED’s decision to proceed from Bengaluru, he argued that the choice of jurisdiction cannot be left to the investigating agency’s convenience.
He contended,
“Fourteen accounts are frozen, all in Delhi. All of it occurred in Delhi. Don’t you (ED) have an office in Delhi? Why do you choose Bengaluru? Because it suits you. Milord, it can’t be the prosecution’s choice that it comes to a court here,”
Poovayya added that even if the ED chooses to conduct the investigation through its Bengaluru zonal office for administrative reasons, the judicial proceedings arising from such an investigation must be before courts in Delhi, which alone have territorial jurisdiction.
On behalf of the ED, Advocate Madhu N Rao opposed the plea and questioned its maintainability. He urged the Court not to grant the relief sought by Rathore, stating that the investigation is at a very crucial stage.
He submitted that assets worth nearly ₹800 crore have already been attached in connection with the case. He also stated that several players who used the WinZo platform have made complaints alleging that the company used bots, and many users were allegedly unaware of where they could file complaints.
According to him, the ED is a pan-India investigative agency and is fully empowered to conduct investigations anywhere in the country.
He said,
“It’s not their case that we cannot investigate. I have rights to investigate because I am an all-India organisation,”
Responding to this, Poovayya clarified that Rathore is not challenging the ED’s authority to investigate but is only questioning the territorial jurisdiction from which the investigation and court proceedings are being conducted.
He argued that even if the ED’s allegations are assumed to be correct, no part of the alleged offence took place in Bengaluru. The only connection with Bengaluru, according to him, is the issuance of summons to WinZo representatives and their subsequent arrest.
He also highlighted that while Rathore has already been granted bail, the company’s co-founder Paavan Nanda continues to remain in judicial custody based on a remand order passed by a Bengaluru court. Poovayya contended that this remand order itself is without jurisdiction, as the matter ought to have been before a Delhi court.
“Indirectly, you are seeking bail (for Nanda),”
Justice Nagaprasanna remarked at this submission.
Poovayya replied,
“No, I will go (to the trial court for seeking such relief),”
“If something is rendered here, it will automatically be applicable to the person in custody,”
Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out.
Poovayya replied,
“I understand, but for observations on jurisdiction, I can only come to the Constitutional court. I will go back to that court for (bail). But there is a cloud of doubt on the jurisdiction of the court,”
After hearing both sides, Justice Nagaprasanna made it clear that the matter would be finally heard on January 14 and that no adjournments would be granted.
ALSO READ: WinZO Co-Founders Arrested: ED Gets 10-Day Custody in Massive Money Laundering Probe
“We will take it on 14th and tell (ED) not to precipitate until then. On 14th, I’ll decide. On 14th, no adjournment, we will close this,”
the judge said while adjourning the case.
The High Court’s decision on the jurisdictional issue is expected to have significant implications for the ongoing investigation and related proceedings against the online gaming company and its founders.
Case Title:
Saumya Singh Rathore v. Directorate of Enforcement
Click Here to Read More Reports On WinZo
