Fake CoinDCX domain scam led to co-founders’ arrests before Thane court granted bail

A 7.16 million rupee (~$77,000) fraud complaint tied to a counterfeit CoinDCX lookalike site escalated into the custody of CoinDCX co-founders in Bengaluru. A Thane magistrate court later granted bail and recorded that no prima facie case had been established against them, while CoinDCX said the scam never touched its systems.

Key Takeaways

• A fraud complaint alleging about 7.16 million rupees was filed at Mumbra police station in Thane on March 16, 2026.
• The alleged victim said he was misled by a lookalike domain, coindcx.pro, while CoinDCX’s legitimate site is coindcx.com.
• CoinDCX co-founders Sumit Gupta and Neeraj Khandelwal were taken into custody in Bengaluru as the investigation progressed.
• A Thane magistrate court granted bail and noted no prima facie case against the co-founders, and CoinDCX stated no related funds were processed through its exchange systems.

Fake CoinDCX Domain, 7.16 Million Rupee Complaint, and the Arrests

The case began with a complaint from a 42-year-old insurance consultant based in Mumbra, in Thane district within the Mumbai metropolitan region. The complainant alleged losses of about 7.16 million rupees (about $77,000) after believing he was dealing with CoinDCX.

The incident then took a turn that matters for centralized venues. As the investigation moved forward, CoinDCX co-founders Sumit Gupta and Neeraj Khandelwal were taken into custody in Bengaluru, despite the alleged interaction being tied to a counterfeit web presence rather than the exchange’s known domain.

That sequence is the market-relevant signal. Even when a fraud originates outside an exchange’s systems, the initial legal pathway can still run straight through the executive suite, creating a reputational and operational overhang before facts are cleanly separated.

How coindcx.pro Allegedly Sold 10%–12% Monthly Returns

The alleged hook was simple and repeatable: fixed, high monthly returns. The complainant described being pitched “investment opportunities” promising 10%–12% monthly returns, framed with references to a crypto “franchise-style” model linked to CoinDCX.

The infrastructure was low-tech but effective. The counterfeit domain cited as central to the incident was coindcx.pro, while CoinDCX’s legitimate domain is coindcx.com. That kind of lookalike domain is enough to borrow brand credibility at a glance, especially when paired with a supporting ecosystem.

The impersonation reportedly extended beyond a single website into Telegram channels and social media accounts designed to reinforce legitimacy. For traders, the pattern is familiar: a high-return pitch plus brand association, then distribution through fast-moving social rails where verification is optional and urgency is easy to manufacture.

Court Bail Order: No Prima Facie Case Against CoinDCX Co-Founders

A Thane magistrate court granted bail to the co-founders and noted that no prima facie case had been established against them. The court observed the complainant was deceived by individuals impersonating the company’s promoters, and the complainant admitted he had no interaction with the co-founders.

That observation shifts the narrative away from exchange-internal fraud and toward external impersonation centered on a lookalike domain. CoinDCX also stated, “no money connected to this matter was processed through its exchange systems,” and said the scam did not originate within the platform.

The legal posture still leaves open questions, but the court’s framing matters for how traders should interpret headline risk. The immediate issue is not a confirmed compromise of CoinDCX’s matching engine, wallets, or internal controls. It is the ease with which brand spoofing can be mistaken for platform involvement early in an investigation.

What Could Change Next for CoinDCX Users and the Investigation

The next inflection is documentation. Any disclosure of FIR details or additional court filings would clarify the basis for the arrests and the scope of the investigation, including whether the case is being treated as primarily impersonation-led from this point.

The operational question is whether police identify or arrest the alleged impersonators behind coindcx.pro and any associated Telegram or social accounts referenced in the case narrative. Without that, the story remains asymmetric: the brand owner absorbs the headline damage while the spoofing network stays mobile.

CoinDCX has positioned impersonation as a scaled threat, saying it reported more than 1,200 fake websites impersonating its platform between April 2024 and January 2026. It also announced a 100 crore rupee ($10.76 million) initiative called the Digital Suraksha Network (DSN), including an AI-driven WhatsApp helpline, APIs for sharing fraud-related data, and collaboration with law enforcement for training and improved response. Milestones on helpline availability, integrations, and training cadence will be the measurable tells.

A final unknown is the money trail. The case coverage does not specify whether the alleged fraud used rails, crypto transfers, or a mix, and it is unclear whether any funds were traced or recovered.

Brand-Spoofing Risk Is Becoming a Legal Risk for Exchanges, Too

I don’t treat this as an exchange-solvency story. The court’s bail order and “no prima facie case” language pushes it toward an impersonation narrative, and CoinDCX’s claim that no related funds hit its systems supports that framing.

The threshold that matters is whether investigators can quickly attribute the spoofing stack, domain plus Telegram plus social handles, to identifiable actors and payment rails. If that attribution holds and produces arrests beyond the brand owner, the setup starts to look structural rather than narrative-driven, and DSN-style coordination becomes a real control surface instead of a PR line.

Sources

• Cointelegraph