Indian anti-money-laundering authorities have frozen ₹137.60 crore held across more than 50 bank accounts linked to Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company tied in enforcement records to the QNET network, in an action that regulators say is aimed at preserving suspected proceeds while a prosecution continues.
Public records reviewed show the Enforcement Directorate (ED) carried out searches in March 2023 at seven locations and invoked powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to impose a provisional attachment and freeze. The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal, in an order dated Aug. 4, 2025, upheld retention of the accounts, keeping the restraint in place as the matter remains before the courts.
The regulatory action intersects with longstanding complaints in multiple police cases in which complainants have alleged losses connected to recruitment-driven inducements and a binary-style compensation structure. Those allegations sit alongside a complicated litigation backdrop: the Supreme Court of India issued interim stays affecting proceedings in 19 FIRs in 2017, and issued “no coercive action” directions in 2019, raising questions about which predicate investigations remain active enough to feed the current PMLA case.
The ED filings referenced in the brief identify beneficial-ownership questions involving QNET figures including Dato Sri Vijay Eswaran and Joseph Bismark, alongside other named individuals: Fofana Amaral, Sharfun Shaikh, Yasir Khamis, Mohanad Al Jaraki and Ahmed Hamza. The attachment itself is an investigative measure, not a final confiscation, and there has been no final money-laundering conviction in the case.
Key evidence remains out of public view. Certified copies of the ED’s attachment order, the full SAFEMA tribunal reasoning, and any post-August 2025 appeals would clarify what exact transactions, counterparties and internal approvals are alleged to underpin the ₹137.60 crore figure, and whether the frozen funds are traceable to specific complainant losses.
Investigators and the public are left with testable hypotheses: whether the attached sums reflect routine business receipts, disputed recruitment-linked revenues, or flows through related entities that require beneficial-ownership mapping. The public-interest stakes are immediate for would-be recruits and existing participants, because an active asset freeze can limit fund movement while authorities decide what should be released, retained or ultimately confiscated-and whether statutory timelines are being met.