On September 6, 2026, the Ramnagar police station in Dombivli logged what initially appeared to be an isolated complaint. The First Information Report named Progain Rental and Marketing Services Private Limited and six individuals — Sanjay Nar, Prashant Jagdish Angane, Pallavi Angane, Laxman Yadav, Jitu Gala, and Priya Vishwakarma — in connection with an alleged fraud involving 68 investors and approximately ₹7.09 crore.

According to the report, police invoked the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act, suggesting authorities believe money was accepted as deposits and not returned, rather than lost through legitimate business risk. The allegations remain unproven in court.

The case gained particular attention due to the detailed testimony of Rupesh Saigaonkar, a street-food vendor from Malad. Saigaonkar alleged he first invested ₹5,000 with the scheme in 2018, later writing a cheque for ₹3 lakh attracted by promises of roughly 5% interest. When payouts stalled and the office reportedly closed, he was allegedly asked to sign a notarised personal-loan document. By 2023, Saigaonkar claimed ₹5.37 lakh remained outstanding; after meeting Angane following a bail hearing in a separate matter, he allegedly issued another cheque for ₹80,550 for repayment over 22 months — neither of which he claims arrived.

The Pattern Across Multiple Schemes

Investigators allege this was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern. Prashant Jagdish Angane was previously arrested and released on bail in a separate case involving Concunsmart Shares and Stock Broker Private Limited, which reportedly concerned 52 investors and about ₹2.77 crore. Police have characterized the Progain matter as distinct, though the personnel overlap is evident.

The alleged modus operandi, as described in complaints, follows a recurring cycle:

1. Initial investments accepted with promises of returns (often cited as 5%)
2. When payouts are delayed or stopped, investors are asked to invest additional amounts (ranging from 10-50% of blocked funds) to "recover" their money
3. Some investors report receiving payments for a few months before returns halt again
4. New schemes are launched under different company names (Concusmart, Progain Rental Services, etc.)
5. The cycle repeats with fresh promises and deadlines

Scaling Up: The Larger Allegations

While the Dombivli police complaint focuses on 68 investors and ₹7 crore, separate reports suggest a significantly larger scale. The Mumbai Mirror and other outlets have reported allegations of a scam potentially involving ₹1,000-2,000 crore and approximately 5,000 investors across Kalyan-Dombivli.

According to these reports, of the estimated 5,000 investors:

• Around 3,000 allegedly made payments through cheques
• Nearly 2,000 are claimed to have invested in cash

Investor Rasika Sawant, who allegedly formed a Telegram group called 'Narishakti' to organize affected investors, described how the scheme reportedly evolved: after ConcunSmart, investors were moved to Progain Rental Services following Angane's arrest and bail in an earlier case. Complaints allege investors were subsequently asked to pay another 15% toward their blocked money, with some receiving payments for months before returns stopped again.

From August 2025, fresh investments were allegedly collected on the promise of 5% returns — then halted without notice. Investors were then reportedly asked to keep their money on hold for three months in exchange for a promised 7.5% payout.

The Human Impact

Beyond the financial figures, the alleged human cost is what resonates most deeply in the community. Multiple complainants describe severe financial distress, with senior citizens claiming they mortgaged homes, borrowed money, or placed retirement savings into the schemes.

"For six years, we have been putting in money again and again in the hope that our original investment will come back. Every time, we are given a new scheme, a new deadline and a new assurance. But when payments stop, we are left with the same question: where has our money gone?"

Meena Agashe, whose mother Shanta Nair is allegedly bedridden with osteoporosis

Meena Agashe alleges her 77-year-old mother Shanta Nair, suffering from osteoporosis and multiple bone injuries, invested her life savings believing she would receive timely returns for medicines and decent living. Since 2021, Agashe claims her mother has not received any return, leaving her "without any means of survival."

Another complainant, 77-year-old Peter Rodrigues, is allegedly facing the prospect of losing his house after investing his money in the scheme.

Sawant alleges intimidation and pressure to delete the 'Narishakti' Telegram group, referencing a video in which Angane allegedly spoke about his contacts and influence.

Investor Demands and Official Response

The aggrieved investors have presented specific demands to authorities:

• Scrutiny of financial transactions, bank accounts, and assets linked to the implicated companies
• An impartial investigation into the alleged fraud
• Recovery of their invested money
• Protection against alleged threats or pressure

They have also announced plans for peaceful protests and fasting, stating that repeated attempts to secure answers and recover savings through conventional channels have failed.

Regarding official response, reports indicate mixed experiences. Initially, some complainants alleged police officials were not assisting them adequately. However, more recent accounts suggest the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Thane, and Ramnagar police have initiated inquiries.

Authorities state the matter is under investigation and have sought further details and documents from complainants to assist the probe. No arrests have been confirmed in connection with the larger allegations as of the latest reports.

Legal Context and Challenges

The invocation of the MPID Act in the Dombivli case is significant. This legislation is designed to protect depositors when companies allegedly fail to return deposited funds, setting a lower bar than proving fraudulent intent at the outset. Under this act, authorities can freeze assets and build a case while the deeper question of whether a Ponzi scheme or deliberate fraud existed proceeds in parallel.

Investigators face several challenges in building their case:

• Tracing fund flows across multiple alleged company entities and time periods
• Determining whether genuine business activity existed that later collapsed
• Separating allegations from provable facts in court
• Addressing potential jurisdictional issues if operations extended beyond local police jurisdiction

For the investors, the path to recovery remains uncertain and likely protracted, involving civil proceedings, potential criminal trials, and the lengthy process of asset seizure and distribution — if any recoverable assets are found.