Subhead: Bengaluru-based Ozone Urbana Infra Developers and promoter S. Vasudevan face a provisional attachment of ₹423.38 crore under the anti-money-laundering law; investigators allege “EMI-till-possession” bait, diversion of buyer funds, and non-delivery across projects in Karnataka.
Dateline: BENGALURU | Monday, October 6, 2025
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has provisionally attached immovable properties worth ₹423.38 crore in a probe linked to Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt Ltd and its promoter S. Vasudevan, alleging a real-estate fraud built on “EMI-till-possession” schemes that neither culminated in possession nor refunds to homebuyers. The attachment spans unsold flats, commercial land and personal holdings, including land parcels that together cover about 179 acres in Kannehalli village, Mudigere (Chikkamagaluru). The action flows from multiple FIRs in Bengaluru and a CBI case registered on the directions of the Supreme Court, ED said; searches on August 1 reportedly unearthed evidence of fund diversion to related entities and individuals.
According to case summaries carried by national and regional outlets, investigators estimate that the builder collected ~₹927.22 crore from buyers through up-front bookings and bank loans raised in their names, while promising to service EMIs until handover. ED alleges the money was partly siphoned to group entities and family accounts rather than project completion. The provisional attachment now proceeds to the PMLA Adjudicating Authority for confirmation.
What ED says it found
- Scheme design. Buyers were lured with “EMI-till-possession” offers, an increasingly common tactic in delayed-project scandals: the developer undertakes to pay pre-possession EMIs, effectively masking construction risk and timeline uncertainty. ED alleges projects stalled, EMIs stopped, and refunds didn’t materialise.
- Trail of funds. Search operations on Aug 1 across Bengaluru reportedly turned up ledgers and transaction trails that, investigators say, showed layering and diversion to affiliates and individuals tied to the promoter.
- Assets under attachment. Media tallies list unsold inventory (including flats in Avenue and Aqua-2), ~4.5 acres of commercial land, and personal/family holdings that add up to about 179 acres in Chikkamagaluru—together valued at ₹423.38 crore for attachment purposes.
ED has also flagged buyer complaints that the company raised bank loans in their names under the scheme architecture—an allegation long aired by resident groups and now under formal scrutiny. Earlier reportage placed total claimed losses (across RWAs and multiple projects) far higher than the ED’s current charge-sheeted figure, underscoring the scale of grievance around the Ozone brand.
How we got here: the legal arc
- Police FIRs across Bengaluru police stations triggered financial-crime scrutiny.
- CBI FIR on Supreme Court direction brought central-agency supervision to the table.
- ED searches (Aug 1), followed by the provisional attachment (early Oct), push the case into the PMLA track where property can be frozen and—upon confirmation—restored to victims by order of the special court under Section 8(8). (Restitution is at the court’s discretion and subject to competing claims, including secured lenders.)
Consumer groups in Karnataka welcomed the move but pressed for speedy adjudication, fearing that a protracted attachment phase could lock up value while buyers continue servicing debt. Their ask: rapid Adjudicating Authority timelines and coordination with RERA/insolvency forums to prevent duplication and asset erosion.
The bigger picture: a broader crackdown on builder-buyer frauds
The Ozone action sits inside a nationwide pattern of PMLA moves against stalled or mis-sold housing projects. In the NCR, for instance, ED recently attached ₹255.28 crore in assets linked to Ramprastha Promoters & Developers and, in a separate action, ₹153.16 crore tied to ex-promoters of Universal Buildwell, both on allegations of diverting homebuyer funds and non-delivery. Investigators say the playbook is depressingly consistent: aggressive pre-sales, multi-entity fund flows, long delays, and “soft comfort” promises that unravel late.
Policy-wise, regulators and courts are leaning on escrow discipline, end-use audits, and personal accountability for directors. The ED’s deployment of PMLA in what began as “civil disputes” over delayed delivery signals a willingness to treat systemic diversion as criminal laundering when proceeds of crime are traced through corporate webs.
What it means for affected buyers
1) Provisional vs. final. An ED attachment is provisional until confirmed by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority. After confirmation, a PMLA special court can, in suitable cases, restore attached property or sale proceeds to identified victims, prioritising those with documented claims. (This often requires coordination with RERA, DRTs, or NCLT if insolvency is in play.)
2) Parallel remedies. Buyers typically pursue RERA for possession/interest/refund, consumer commissions for deficiency, and—where a corporate insolvency begins—NCLT as financial creditors. PMLA doesn’t replace these; it freezes the chessboard so assets don’t vanish while civil/insolvency actions grind on.
3) Documentation matters. In any restoration exercise, paper beats passion. Maintain: allotment letters, builder-buyer agreements, bank statements for payments/EMIs, email trails, and any builder commitments (including the “EMI-till-possession” offer). Affidavits from lender banks regarding loan disbursals in your name can be decisive where “loan-without-possession” patterns are alleged.
4) Expect sequencing—not miracles. Even with a confirmed attachment, courts balance secured lender rights, homebuyer claims, and state dues. Outcomes range from project revival under supervision to asset sale and distribution.
The anatomy of “EMI-till-possession”—and why it turns toxic
On paper, “EMI-till-possession” looks buyer-friendly: the developer assures it will service the loan until it hands you the keys. In practice, it can morph into hidden leverage for the builder: the bank disburses early, construction risk is front-loaded to the buyer’s balance sheet, and when schedules slip the builder may stop paying, leaving borrowers with EMIs plus rent and no possession. In extreme cases, borrowers discover full loan disbursal even as construction stalls—precisely the pattern alleged here.
Financial-crime investigators view such constructs warily when paired with multi-entity fund flows, related-party “advances,” and thin project escrow balances. The Aug 1 raids in the Ozone matter, ED says, revealed documentation consistent with layering—a red flag in laundering probes.
Investor and market implications
For lenders, the case underscores the need for stricter stage-linked disbursals and independent engineer audits. For developers, it’s a reminder that escrow inviolability is no longer a box-ticking exercise; diversion risks a PMLA overlay with criminal consequences. For policymakers, it may accelerate pushes for uniform home-finance covenants (EMI offers, subvention schemes) and tighter related-party transaction disclosures in real estate SPVs.
Notably, Karnataka homebuyer advocates are urging that confirmed attachments be monetised swiftly—through court-supervised sales or project-completion trusts—so value does not decay. ED’s recent pattern of attachments in housing cases suggests that asset-freezing is being used to force timelines and create credible pools for restitution.
Timeline: Ozone Urbana case (as reported)
- Multiple FIRs against Ozone Urbana and promoters in Bengaluru police stations.
- CBI FIR registered on SC directions.
- Aug 1, 2025: ED searches at ~10 locations; alleged diversion trail flagged.
- Oct 4–5, 2025: Public reports of ₹423.38 crore provisional attachment; coverage details parcels, unsold units, and 179-acre holdings.
- Next: Matter goes to PMLA Adjudicating Authority; parallel civil/consumer/RERA tracks continue.
Voices around the case
- ED (via media notes): Allegation of ₹927.22 crore collected from buyers/loans, with diversion to related entities; attachment aims to secure assets pending court orders.
- Consumer groups: Welcome the freeze but seek expedited adjudication and coordination so assets don’t lie fallow.
- Resident forums/RWAs (earlier): Some estimate the total exposure much higher across projects and cities, citing long-running complaints.
Sarhind Times has not independently verified all figures; allegations are as stated in agency and media reports. The accused are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.
#ED #PMLA #Bengaluru #Homebuyers #RealEstate #FinancialCrime #CBI #ConsumerRights
+ There are no comments
Add yours