<p>The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has seized Rs 8.26 crore in connection with a case against Pigeon Education Technology India Private Limited, taken up under section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999.</p>.<p>According to an ED statement, the company provides online education in the name of Odaclass. In April, ED had conducted a search and seizure action against Pigeon and found that the company is fully owned by Chinese nationals and all the affairs of the company, including financial decisions, are being taken by them.</p>.<p>During investigation, it was ascertained that the company siphoned off Rs 82.72 crore to China and Hong Kong as advertisement and marketing expenses on the instructions of its Chinese Director, Liu Can.</p>.<p>The company could not produce any proof of receipt of service on its part and proof of any advertisement published against the said expenses. Further, the director and accounts manager of the company admitted during the investigation that the payments were made only on the instructions of the director.</p>.<p>The Indian director of the company, Vedanta Hamirwasia, stated that the Chinese director informed about the said advertisements, as published through Google and Facebook. However, no confirmation or invoice raised by these platforms has been submitted. An investigation is on.</p>
<p>The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has seized Rs 8.26 crore in connection with a case against Pigeon Education Technology India Private Limited, taken up under section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999.</p>.<p>According to an ED statement, the company provides online education in the name of Odaclass. In April, ED had conducted a search and seizure action against Pigeon and found that the company is fully owned by Chinese nationals and all the affairs of the company, including financial decisions, are being taken by them.</p>.<p>During investigation, it was ascertained that the company siphoned off Rs 82.72 crore to China and Hong Kong as advertisement and marketing expenses on the instructions of its Chinese Director, Liu Can.</p>.<p>The company could not produce any proof of receipt of service on its part and proof of any advertisement published against the said expenses. Further, the director and accounts manager of the company admitted during the investigation that the payments were made only on the instructions of the director.</p>.<p>The Indian director of the company, Vedanta Hamirwasia, stated that the Chinese director informed about the said advertisements, as published through Google and Facebook. However, no confirmation or invoice raised by these platforms has been submitted. An investigation is on.</p>
