India’s Enforcement Directorate (ED) says it is investigating alleged foreign-exchange violations involving Mudrex, Saber.money and Instadapp, with more than ₹5, 000 crore under scrutiny. Its preliminary allegations involve stablecoin transfers, crypto holdings overseas and funds moving between India and other jurisdictions.
- The ED linked more than ₹4, 600 crore in alleged transfers and overseas crypto balances to Mudrex and Saber.money.
- A separate investigation puts alleged Instadapp-related violations at approximately $40 million.
- The claims are preliminary. The ED announced no arrests or adjudicated penalties.
What the ED says it is investigating
The ED’s Bengaluru Zonal Office said it conducted searches on Oct. 27 under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), then announced preliminary findings on Oct. 29. The announcement did not specify the year. It listed searches at three premises in Bengaluru and one in Madhya Pradesh. For the separate Instadapp investigation, the ED described searches at two premises in Bengaluru and one in Madhya Pradesh. It did not say whether those premises overlap with the broader list.
The ED put the total amount involved in the investigations at more than ₹5, 000 crore. It said activity linked to Bengaluru-based RPFAS Technologies Private Limited, which operates Mudrex and Saber.money, involved more than ₹4, 600 crore. The agency said that figure covered alleged unauthorized cross-border transfers and crypto balances held overseas. It did not clarify whether the amount represents transaction turnover, balances at a specific point in time or a combination of the two. Nor did it explain how the figure fits into the overall total.
These are allegations, not findings established by a court. The ED reported no arrests or adjudicated penalties.
Stablecoins and cross-border transfers
According to the ED, the Mudrex- and Saber.money-linked business used cryptocurrencies, particularly USDT and USDC, to facilitate international transfers outside authorized remittance channels. Stablecoins are crypto tokens designed to track the value of a currency, often the U.S. dollar. Using them does not, by itself, establish a violation. The ED’s allegations concern the specific services and transfers it says took place without the required authorization.
Investigators said the process began with customers depositing money into company bank accounts. The company allegedly used the funds to buy virtual digital assets, especially USDT, then sold them on Indian crypto exchanges. According to the ED, the proceeds were paid to recipients.
Investigators also cited large over-the-counter transactions, overseas companies incorporated in Canada, Lithuania and the United States, and activity involving foreign platforms including Binance and Bybit. The ED alleged that crypto holdings on foreign platforms and payments for expenses abroad were part of the violations. It announced no penalties against either exchange.
Screenshots in the ED’s release showed Saber.money advertising stablecoin payment infrastructure for Asia, instant on-ramps and off-ramps, and currency transfers. On-ramps and off-ramps connect fiat money with crypto. One advertisement said a traditional bank transfer takes “30 hours, ” while a Saber transfer takes “0.2 seconds.” These are advertising claims, not independently verified performance figures.
Mudrex’s public compliance page identifies RPFAS Technologies as registered with India’s Financial Intelligence Unit under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and displays registration number VA00031079. That registration covers anti-money-laundering reporting obligations. By itself, it does not authorize international remittance services. The page does not address the ED’s allegations.
Instadapp investigation follows funds through overseas entities
The ED’s separate investigation concerns Instadapp, an Ethereum-based protocol associated with Fluid and used for lending, borrowing and token swaps. The agency estimated approximately $40 million in alleged FEMA violations. Its public announcement included no transaction hashes, account statements or transaction-by-transaction calculation to support that estimate.
According to the ED, the operation was presented as being run by a Delaware-registered company, while founder Sowmay Jain and members of the development team worked from India. The agency named Instadapp Labs Inc. in Delaware; Interop Labs and Summerspeak in the British Virgin Islands; Upsurge Labs and Bhindi Labs in Singapore; and Pebble Labs Technology in Dubai.
The ED alleged that some of these companies had no offices or employees where they were registered and were used to route income earned abroad to India. It said protocol revenue and investor funding arrived as stablecoins in multisignature wallets belonging to Interop Labs Ltd. in the British Virgin Islands. These wallets require multiple authorizations for transactions. The ED alleged that people based in India controlled them, but did not set out the evidence for that claim in its public account.
Investigators said the stablecoins were sold through Independent Reserve Singapore and QCP Capital Singapore. The proceeds were converted to fiat and deposited into accounts belonging to Singapore-based Upsurge Labs and Bhindi Labs. The ED further alleged that later transfers to India were presented as payments for bogus software development and consultancy fees. It also cited Singapore-issued prepaid bank cards used for expenses in India, along with transfers from Singapore accounts to founders’ bank accounts in Dubai.
The public details describe the route investigators allege, but do not show the transaction-level evidence behind the $40 million estimate. The investigation is ongoing, and the allegations have not been adjudicated.
What the figures do, and do not, show
The more-than-₹5, 000-crore overall figure, the more-than-₹4, 600-crore estimate for activity linked to Mudrex and Saber.money, and the approximately $40 million estimate for Instadapp are not directly comparable based on the information disclosed. The ED has not provided a detailed reconciliation of the totals or explained how it calculated each estimate. In particular, the ₹4, 600-crore figure appears to combine alleged transfers with overseas crypto balances, without explaining how either category was measured.
The timing is also unclear. The ED gave Oct. 27 and Oct. 29 as the search and announcement dates but did not specify the year. The available public details do not establish when the searches took place.
The ED named Binance and Bybit in connection with transactions and holdings, but reported no penalties against them. Its announcement also did not include responses from Mudrex, Saber.money, Instadapp or the other named entities. The allegations reflect the agency’s preliminary account, not established findings.
Key questions and answers
-
What is the ED alleging against Mudrex and Saber.money?
The agency says activity involving more than ₹4, 600 crore included unauthorized cross-border transfers and crypto balances held overseas. It alleges that stablecoins were used to move funds outside authorized remittance channels.
-
What is the Instadapp probe about?
The ED alleges that overseas entities, stablecoin wallets and company accounts were used to route revenue and funding. It estimates approximately $40 million in related FEMA violations, but its public announcement does not include transaction-level records supporting the estimate.
-
Does Mudrex’s FIU registration resolve the allegations?
No. RPFAS Technologies’ registration under India’s anti-money-laundering framework does not, by itself, authorize the international transfer services under investigation.
-
Have arrests or penalties been announced?
No arrests or adjudicated penalties were reported. The ED described its findings as preliminary, and the Instadapp investigation is ongoing.
-
What are the most important unanswered questions?
The ED has not explained how it calculated or reconciled the headline totals, or publicly detailed the evidence behind its claims about control of the Instadapp-linked wallets. The announcement also does not specify the year of the searches or include responses from the named companies.
Crypto networks can speed up some transfers and leave records investigators can examine. But on-chain records do not automatically identify who controls a wallet, and they do not reveal every off-chain bank transfer. Speed and traceability do not replace clear corporate structures or compliance with foreign-exchange rules. The evidence behind the ED’s allegations will matter as much as the size of its estimates.
