In a significant development in the ongoing investigation into a multi-crore online betting and gaming fraud, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) has alleged the involvement of Fino Payments Bank and its Managing Director and CEO Rishi Gupta in facilitating a network of shell entities through dummy programme managers.
The allegations were placed before a local court while seeking custodial interrogation of Gupta. A special judge for economic offences in Hyderabad granted the agency two days’ custody, after Gupta had been taken into custody on Monday for questioning.
According to DGGI’s submissions before the court, investigators found that three entities were onboarded by the bank as programme managers or resellers but later turned out to be non-functional dummy firms. These entities allegedly served as intermediaries to onboard several other shell companies under the bank’s role as a payment aggregator. The agency claimed that through these dummy programme managers alone, transactions linked to online gaming platforms worth nearly ₹3,000 crore were routed through the banking system.
Investigators identified three such programme managers—PS Rao Digital Solutions (OPC) Private Limited, Billexpress Solutions Private Limited, and Powerfin Technology Private Limited. According to the agency, these entities were used to onboard as many as 36 additional shell companies on the bank’s payment aggregation platform. DGGI also shared a list of eight other suspected programme manager or reseller entities with the bank and sought further information regarding their activities and onboarding processes.
During the course of the probe, DGGI conducted physical verification of several merchant entities. Two firms—Oceanique Web Solutions Private Limited and Webwin IT Hub Solutions Private Limited—were inspected and allegedly found to be dummy and non-operational. These companies were linked to online gaming websites and applications such as funinmatch360.com and Racejeet. Investigators claimed that these platforms formed part of a broader network involved in illegal real-money gaming operations.
The agency told the court that the shell firms were created under the guise of legitimate merchants or resellers but were actually used to route large volumes of funds connected to online gaming platforms. By operating through such entities, the syndicate allegedly provided gaming services without issuing proper tax invoices. This enabled them to suppress turnover, conceal taxable supplies in GST returns, and evade tax liabilities.
DGGI further informed the court that between October 1, 2023, and September 30, 2025, the taxable value of services provided to the dummy or non-functioning merchants through the three programme managers was approximately ₹28 crore. Based on an estimated transaction fee of around 0.75 percent, investigators calculated that the total transaction value processed through the bank via these programme managers was nearly ₹3,000 crore. The agency alleged that goods and services tax at the rate of 28 percent applicable to online gaming services was evaded on these transactions.
The agency also raised serious concerns regarding alleged lapses in due diligence by the bank. According to DGGI, the onboarding of these programme managers and associated merchants took place without adequate verification, inspections, audits, or risk monitoring—despite the bank being contractually empowered to conduct such checks. Investigators claimed the rapid onboarding drive was encouraged primarily to increase turnover and generate fee-based income.
In its submissions, DGGI alleged that Gupta played a crucial role in the selection and approval of partners and programme managers associated with the bank. The agency described his involvement as “active collusion” and “conscious facilitation” at the highest level of management, alleging that the onboarding of these entities occurred under his direct supervision.
The agency further claimed that Gupta was the “mastermind” behind the alleged offence and informed the court that investigators faced obstruction when officials attempted to enter the bank’s premises to carry out inspections and record statements during the course of the investigation.
While granting two days of custodial interrogation, the special court permitted Gupta’s legal counsel to remain present at a distance during questioning, provided that they do not interfere with the investigation. DGGI officials are expected to utilise the custody period to examine the decision-making process behind the onboarding of programme managers, the due diligence procedures followed by the bank, and the flow of funds linked to the suspected online gaming network.
Read More: Service Tax Demand Can’t Survive Once Extended Limitation Is Dropped: CESTAT
