Page: 906-926 URL: [Link].

com

LawFoyer International Journal

of Doctrinal Legal Research
[ISSN: 2583-7753]

Volume 3 | Issue 4

2025

DOI: [Link]

© 2025 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research

Follow this and additional research works at: [Link]

Under the Platform of LawFoyer – [Link]

After careful consideration, the editorial board of LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal
Legal Research has decided to publish this submission as part of the publication.

In case of any suggestions or complaints, kindly contact ([Link]@[Link])

To submit your Manuscript for Publication in the LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal
Legal Research, To submit your Manuscript Click here
906 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

UNMASKING SHELL COMPANIES: AN INDIAN

CORPORATE LAW ASSESSMENT
Snehal Bajpeyee 1

I. ABSTRACT

This paper examines the complex role of shell companies within India’s corporate and financial
ecosystem, emphasising their dual character as both legitimate business tools and high-risk
vehicles for illicit activities. While shell companies can facilitate investment structuring, asset
holding, and cross-border transactions, their opacity makes them vulnerable to misuse for
money laundering, tax evasion, benami ownership, and concealment of undisclosed foreign
assets. Through an analysis of major global scandals such as the Panama Papers and the 1MDB
fraud, the study illustrates how shell structures can be weaponised to obscure financial trails
and enable corruption. In the Indian context, the paper evaluates the legal and regulatory
framework governing shell entities across multiple statutes, including the Companies Act,
2013, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
Amendment Act, 2016, and the Black Money Act, 2015. It assesses the government’s
increasing reliance on strike-offs, physical verification, beneficial ownership requirements, and
stringent reporting obligations to curb corporate opacity. The study also investigates the role
of corporate service providers and their potential involvement in facilitating illicit transactions
through the creation and management of shell companies. It highlights the effectiveness of
India’s recent regulatory measures, such as the push for enhanced disclosure requirements and
increased scrutiny of foreign direct investment, but also identifies gaps and challenges in
enforcement. While legislative reforms have made progress, there remains a need for stronger
inter-agency coordination and a more robust global framework to address cross-border misuse.
Furthermore, the paper suggests that technological advancements, such as blockchain and AI-
driven data analysis, could significantly enhance the government’s ability to trace and monitor
shell companies more effectively.

1 National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam (India). Email: bajpeyeesnehal@[Link]

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

907 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

II. KEYWORDS

Corporate Fraud, Financial Crimes, Corporate Transparency, Indian Corporate law,

Indian Shell Companies, Shell Companies Scams.

III. INTRODUCTION

Shell companies are corporate entities that exist largely on paper, with little or no
significant assets, employees, or operational activity. They are typically incorporated
for legitimate purposes such as facilitating mergers, holding assets, or structuring
investments. However, their minimal transparency and flexible structures make them
particularly susceptible to misuse. 2 In the Indian context, shell companies have
frequently been associated with unlawful practices like money laundering, tax
evasion, layering of transactions, and the concealment of beneficial ownership.

The Companies Act, 2013 does not explicitly define “shell company,” but regulators
such as the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), SEBI, and enforcement agencies
have evolved indicative criteria to identify suspicious entities, such as lack of
operational revenue, disproportionate financial transactions, dummy directors, and
obscure ownership patterns. 3 Recent government crackdowns, including mass strike-
offs of inactive companies and strengthened disclosure norms, underline the growing
concern around such entities. 4 Understanding what constitutes a shell company is
therefore crucial for assessing the effectiveness of India’s corporate regulatory
framework and for distinguishing genuine, lawful business structures from opaque
entities used for illicit ends.

2 Will Kenton, What Is a Shell Corporation? How It’s Used, Examples and Legality, Investopedia,
[Link] (updated Feb. 3, 2025)
3 Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government identified 2,38,223 companies as shell companies between 2018-

2021, Press Info. Bureau (July 27, 2021),

[Link]
4 Operation Chakra-V: CBI arrests three in operation targeting transnational cyber fraud network, The Hindu,

(Oct. 15, 2025), [Link]

operation-targeting-transnational-cyber-fraud-network/[Link]

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

908 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

A. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

• To examine the role of shell companies within India's corporate and

financial ecosystem.

• To assess the legal and regulatory frameworks governing shell companies

in India.

• To evaluate the effectiveness of current measures in curbing corporate

opacity and illicit activities related to shell companies.

B. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• How do shell companies impact India’s financial and corporate systems?

• What are the key weaknesses in the current regulatory framework

governing shell companies in India?

• How effective are the measures taken by the government to tackle shell
companies and their illicit uses?

C. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

• The existing legal and regulatory frameworks in India are insufficient to

effectively prevent the misuse of shell companies.

• Strengthened regulatory measures, such as enhanced disclosure and

physical verification, will reduce the incidence of illicit shell company
activities in India.

• The use of blockchain technology and artificial intelligence will

significantly enhance the identification and tracking of shell companies in
India.

• Global cooperation and information-sharing between financial institutions

and regulatory bodies will improve the effectiveness of India's regulatory
measures against shell companies.

• The lack of a statutory definition of a shell company in Indian law

contributes to legal ambiguities that hinder enforcement and regulation.

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

909 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

D. LITERATURE REVIEW

The issue of shell companies has been a subject of significant academic discourse,
particularly concerning their dual role as both legitimate business entities and vehicles
for illicit activities. Existing scholarship highlights how shell companies enable
financial crimes like money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption (Zohar &
Milgrom, 2018). Scholars argue that while shell companies are often perceived as a
necessary tool for tax planning and investment structuring, they are equally
susceptible to abuse due to their opacity and flexibility (Kaye, 2017). In India, the
prevalence of shell companies has raised concerns over their misuse for laundering
illicit funds and evading taxes (Sengupta, 2020).

An important body of work focuses on the legal frameworks that regulate shell
companies. Scholars like Gupta (2019) have noted that India’s regulatory
environment, although strengthened in recent years, still lacks comprehensive
measures to tackle the complex nature of shell company structures. The Companies
Act, 2013, and other related laws have been criticized for being reactive rather than
proactive, only addressing symptoms of corporate opacity rather than addressing its
root causes (Bhattacharya & Moudgil, 2019). Furthermore, academic critiques of
international tax havens highlight that the global financial system often facilitates the
creation and maintenance of these opaque entities in countries with lax regulations
(Sharma, 2021).

The role of regulatory agencies such as the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and
SEBI has also been widely discussed. Scholars argue that while these agencies have
made substantial progress in identifying and deregistering shell companies, the
continued use of such entities suggests that enforcement mechanisms remain
insufficient (Kumar & Banerjee, 2022).

Additionally, literature on the global regulatory responses to shell companies

provides insights into the comparative effectiveness of India’s measures. Studies on
the Panama Papers and the 1MDB scandal underscore how financial secrecy and lax
regulatory oversight in both offshore and onshore jurisdictions contribute to the
proliferation of shell companies (Baker, 2016). These global examples demonstrate

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

910 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

how multinational cooperation and the strengthening of transparency laws can

mitigate the risk of shell company misuse, lessons that are particularly relevant to
India.

Moreover, emerging academic discussions on technology’s role in enhancing

regulatory oversight have suggested that using blockchain technology, data analytics,
and artificial intelligence (AI) could significantly improve the detection and tracking
of shell company activities (Singh & Kapoor, 2021). While these technological
solutions are still in their nascent stages in India, there is increasing optimism about
their potential to address the loopholes in the current system.

IV. UNDERSTANDING THE EXTENT OF SHELL COMPANIES

The 2016 Panama Papers 5 revealed that shell companies are not rare or minor entities;
instead, they form a vast and complicated global system of offshore structures used to
hide the activities of wealthy individuals and powerful leaders. 6 These entities are not
limited to distant tax havens. Autocratic rulers and their associates routinely use shell
companies in major Western financial centres to store unlawfully gained wealth in
stable, reputable banking systems. 7 In many countries, politicians and officials also
rely on locally incorporated shell companies to move money secretly or carry out
corrupt dealings. 8

Shell companies are usually set up by Corporate Service Providers, specialised law
firms, consultants, or accountants. While investigations may lead authorities to the
shell company’s formal records, the true individuals controlling the company often
remain hidden. These companies can also be layered within each other, forming
opaque ownership chains. A particular type, known as a “shelf company,” is formed
and kept inactive until someone purchases it later. Because banks and other

5 Luke Harding, What Are the Panama Papers? A Guide to History’s Biggest Data Leak, The Guardian,
Apr. 3, 2016, [Link]
the-panama-papers
6 Bastian Obermayer & Frederik Obermaier, The Panama Papers: Breaking the Story of How the Rich &

Powerful Hide Their Money (Oneworld Publ’ns 2016).

7 J. C. Sharman, The Despot’s Guide to Wealth Management: On the International Campaign against Grand

Corruption (Cornell Univ. Press 2017).

8 Jancsics, D. (2016). Offshoring at Home? Domestic Use of Shell Companies for Corruption. Public

Integrity, 19(1), 4–21. [Link]

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

911 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

institutions tend to trust companies that appear older, buyers often use shelf
companies to make it easier to secure credit, leases, or loans.

V. LEGAL SHELL COMPANIES

Although shell companies are often associated with wrongdoing, many of their uses
are entirely lawful. A major reason why companies create shell entities abroad is to
take advantage of favourable tax rules in other countries. Large firms often shift parts
of their business, such as jobs, profits, or production, to jurisdictions with lower taxes.
This practice, commonly known as offshoring, 9 lets them reduce the amount of tax
they owe at home. To comply with international laws while doing this, many U.S.
companies establish shell corporations in the countries where they relocate their
operations. 10 This is permitted under American law, and some argue that the U.S. tax
system itself pushes companies toward creating such foreign structures.

Shell companies are also used when financial institutions want to operate or invest in
overseas markets. By setting up a company in another country, they can participate in
local capital markets and sometimes benefit from reduced tax obligations. In this way,
shell companies become a tool for managing global financial activity while securing
possible tax advantages.

Businesses may set them up to manage mergers or joint ventures more smoothly, or
to ensure fair treatment by placing the arrangement in a neutral jurisdiction.
Individuals also use such companies to hold family wealth, simplify inheritance, or
protect their property from possible creditor claims. 11 In fact, well-known brands
frequently rely on shell companies when purchasing land so that sellers do not inflate

9 McKinsey Global Institute, Offshoring: is it a win-win game? August 2003,

[Link]
rowth/Offshoring%20Is%20it%20a%20win%20win%20game/MGI_Is_offshoring_a_win_win_game_
[Link]
10 Jim Greene, Shell Corporation, EBSCO Research Starters, EBSCO (2025),

[Link]
11 Van der Does de Willebois, E., Halter, E. M., Harrison, R. A., Park, J. W., & Sharman, J. C. (2011).

The puppet masters: How the corrupt use legal structures to hide stolen assets and what to do about
it. [Link]
information/Corruption/Puppet_Masters.pdf

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

912 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

prices upon recognising them. 12 Celebrities sometimes adopt the same strategy to
keep their home addresses private.

What makes shell companies particularly attractive is confidentiality. They can hold
bank accounts, own assets, and carry out transactions, while keeping real owners
hidden. Because they are inexpensive and simple to create in many countries, they
become ideal tools for moving money quietly across borders or obscuring ownership.
This same secrecy, however, enables harmful activities such as money laundering, tax
evasion, corruption, terrorism financing, sanctions evasion, and other illicit practices.
In corrupt dealings, their primary value lies in allowing the actual beneficiary to
remain anonymous while still maintaining control over the company’s resources.

Contrary to popular belief, these entities are not limited to far-off tax havens like
Panama, the Bahamas, or the Cayman Islands. In reality, a substantial number of shell
companies operate out of Western countries, which often host large volumes of
suspicious funds. Research shows that many Corporate Service Providers (CSPs) in
developed nations are the least compliant with global transparency standards. 13 Some
domestic legal systems even make this easier. For example, in the United States, CSPs
are not legally required to verify who really owns the company they create. 14 States
such as Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming, and Florida have become well-known internal
“tax havens.” 15 The American real estate market, in particular, performs minimal due
diligence on shell-company buyers, making it especially vulnerable. 16

Historically, businesses have taken advantage of offshore shell companies to reduce

taxes. Although their use dates back to the 1920s, they surged after 2005 when the
European Union introduced a tax on interest income earned by EU residents in tax

12 Mark G. Findley, Daniel L. Nielson & J. C. Sharman, Global Shell Games: Experiments in Transnational
Relations, Crime, and Terrorism (Cambridge Univ. Press 2014).
13 Id.
14 Supra Note 6 (Sharman)
15 CFI Team, What Is a Tax Haven? Corporate Finance Institute,

[Link] (last visited Nov.

21, 2025).
16 Alexander Cooley & John Heathershaw, Dictators Without Borders: Power and Money in Central Asia

(Yale Univ. Press 2017).

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

913 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

havens. 17 Since the tax only applied to accounts held by individuals, not companies,
many depositors shifted their savings into shell entities to avoid the levy.

VI. TYPES OF SHELLS

A. EMPTY & LIVE SHELLS

Live shell companies are entities that, although not engaged in full-scale business
activity, still carry out limited or targeted operations. These activities may include
holding specific assets, conducting small or routine financial transactions, or
maintaining minimal records to appear active before regulators. Their limited activity
gives them an air of legitimacy, making them harder to detect as fronts for
concealment. Live shells are often used in schemes involving money laundering,
corruption, or tax evasion, where the operator needs a functioning corporate identity
to move funds or disguise the true ownership of resources. By maintaining nominal
activity, they reduce the likelihood of attracting regulatory scrutiny while still serving
the hidden interests of their controllers.

Empty shell companies, on the other hand, have virtually no economic presence or
operational footprint. They typically lack employees, assets, business revenue, or any
form of commercial engagement. These entities exist only on paper, often created
solely for the purpose of anonymity or convenience. 18 Many empty shells are “shelf
companies,” 19 which remain inactive until purchased for quick use in a transaction or
as part of a complex ownership chain. Their complete lack of activity makes them ideal
for hiding beneficial ownership, holding assets quietly, or serving as layers in multi-
tier corporate structures designed to obscure the flow of money. An empty shell
company can also be used to quietly purchase or hold assets on behalf of an
undisclosed owner. Investigations by journalists have shown that a significant portion

17 Supra Note 5 (Obermayer)

18 Supra Note 7 (Jancsics)
19 Karl Pragassen, The Professional’s Toolkit – Shelf Companies, IFC Rev., May 1, 2011,

[Link]

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

914 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

almost half of the highest-value residential properties in the United States are now
bought through shell companies, allowing the real buyers to remain hidden. 20

Empty shell companies are also commonly used as tools in domestic corruption
schemes In such arrangements, they act like “switchers.” First, public assets or rights
are transferred to a shell company at an artificially low value. Then, corrupt officials
make legal or administrative changes that suddenly increase the value of what the
shell company holds. Once this inflated value is secured, the shell company is sold to
a private buyer, allowing the corrupt actors to pocket the profit.

A well-documented example of this occurred in Budapest, Hungary, in a large real

estate corruption network.21 Twenty-six old buildings in a historic neighbourhood
were deliberately undervalued and transferred by the local government to shell
companies secretly controlled by the mayor and his associates. After taking
ownership, the government quietly removed the buildings’ heritage protections and
issued demolition and construction permits. With the new permissions in place,
private developers purchased the shell companies, built modern office complexes and
residential projects, and later sold them for substantial profit. This entire process
allowed corrupt officials to hide their involvement while benefiting financially from
the manipulated increase in property value.

In essence, while live shells mimic minimal business activity to appear authentic,
empty shells remain entirely dormant and serve as vessels for hidden control or
secrecy.

B. OFFSHORE & ONSHORE SHELLS

Offshore shell companies are entities incorporated in foreign jurisdictions, usually in

countries known for low taxes, strict confidentiality rules, and relaxed regulatory
requirements. These jurisdictions include places like the Cayman Islands, Panama, the

20 Story L, Saul S (2015) Stream of foreign wealth flows to elite New York real estate. The New York
Times, February 7, 2015
21 Jancsics, D. and Jávor, I. (2012) ‘Corrupt Governmental Networks’, International Public Management

Journal, 15(1), pp. 62–99. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2012.684019.

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

915 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

British Virgin Islands, or Mauritius. 22 Offshore shells are commonly used to reduce
tax obligations, structure international investments, or hold assets discreetly. Their
strongest appeal lies in secrecy: many offshore locations do not require disclosure of
beneficial owners, making it difficult to trace the real individuals behind the company.
While offshore shells can be used for legitimate global business activities, their
anonymity and lenient oversight also make them attractive for money laundering, tax
evasion, and hiding illicit wealth. 23

Onshore shell companies are registered within the same country where the owners or
controllers live or operate. They follow domestic laws and are set up in local
jurisdictions, often because they are cheap and simple to form. Unlike offshore shells,
onshore shells do not rely heavily on foreign secrecy laws. Instead, they exploit gaps
in domestic regulation, weak enforcement, or limited disclosure requirements. These
companies may appear more legitimate because they exist within the country’s legal
system, but they can still be used to move funds covertly, mask ownership, or facilitate
corruption. Domestic empty shells frequently play a role in local fraud, procurement
scams, political corruption, and real estate manipulation. Examples in India include
the NSEL scam, 24 and Sandesara Family scam. 25

VII. ANALYSING POPULAR SHELL COMPANY SCAMS

A. THE PANAMA PAPERS LEAK

The Panama Papers scandal is one of the most famous examples of how shell
companies can be used to hide wealth and avoid scrutiny. In 2016, millions of
confidential documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca were leaked,
exposing how politicians, business leaders, celebrities, and criminal networks across

22 Giulia Aliprandi, Thijs Busschots & Carlos Oliveira, Mapping the Global Geography of Shell Companies
(EU Tax Observatory, 2023), [Link]
geography-of-shell-companies/
23 Id.
24 CBI nails 9 shell companies in Rs 5,600 crore NSEL scam, Deccan Chronicle, May 8, 2017,

[Link]
[Link]
25 ED discovers 174 shell firms run by Sandesara family, files charge sheet in Rs 8,100-crore fraud, Business

Today, Oct. 24, 2018, [Link]

174-shell-firms-run-by-sandesara-family-files-charge-sheet-rs-8100-crore-fraud-150683-2018-10-24

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

916 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

the world used shell companies registered in tax havens to conceal their assets. These
companies often existed only on paper and had no real operations, employees, or
commercial activity. 26

The leak revealed that Mossack Fonseca created thousands of offshore shells to help
clients avoid taxes, hide illicit wealth, or move money anonymously across borders.
While some companies had legitimate tax-planning purposes, many were linked to
corruption, embezzlement, sanctions evasion, and public-fund theft. A key problem
was the secrecy offered by tax havens: beneficial owners were hidden behind nominee
directors, making it nearly impossible for authorities to trace the real individuals
controlling the money. 27

The scandal had major global consequences. It triggered investigations in several

countries, forced resignations of political leaders, and sparked a global debate on
transparency in financial systems. It also highlighted how weak regulations and
secrecy laws allow private firms to create complex layers of shell companies that can
protect corrupt actors. The Panama Papers became a symbol of the global fight against
financial secrecy and pushed governments to tighten corporate disclosure and anti–
money laundering rules. Ultimately, the leak showed how shell companies can be
misused to hide massive amounts of money while staying technically within, or just
outside, the boundaries of the law.

B. THE 1MDB SCANDAL

The 1MDB (1Malaysia Development Berhad) scandal is another major case where
shell companies were central to a multi-billion-dollar fraud. 1MDB was a state-owned
investment fund created by the Malaysian government to promote economic
development. However, over several years, billions of dollars were siphoned from the

26 Lawrence J. Trautman, Following the Money: Lessons from the Panama Papers, 121 Penn St. L. Rev. 807
(2017).
27 Id.

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

917 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

fund through an international web of shell companies and bank accounts, many
registered in offshore secrecy jurisdictions. 28

The key operators of the scheme, including businessman Jho Low, used shell
companies in Singapore, the British Virgin Islands, and other tax havens to disguise
the movement of funds. These entities acted as intermediaries, receiving money from
1MDB and then transferring it through multiple layers of accounts, making it difficult
to track the original source. The stolen money was allegedly used to buy luxury real
estate in the United States, artwork, private jets, and even to finance Hollywood
films. 29

The use of shell companies allowed the fraud to continue for years without detection.
These entities provided anonymity, helped falsify loan documents, and created the
illusion of legitimate business transactions. When investigators finally uncovered the
scheme, it became one of the largest financial scandals in history. Multiple countries
began criminal proceedings, major banks were fined, and the scandal led to political
upheaval in Malaysia, including the defeat of the ruling government.

The 1MDB case demonstrates how shell companies can be used not only to hide
wealth but also to steal public funds on a massive scale. It shows the risk of combining
weak governance, global financial secrecy, and sophisticated shell structures.

VIII. INDIAN LAWS & SHELL COMPANIES

A. THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

Indian company law does not provide a formal or statutory definition of a “shell
company” under the Companies Act, 2013. Despite this absence, the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs (MCA) routinely identifies and treats certain inactive companies as
shell companies, particularly those that have failed to carry on business for extended
periods or have not met compliance obligations. The MCA uses its powers under

28 Jones DS (2020), "1MDB corruption scandal in Malaysia: a study of failings in control and
accountability". Public Administration and Policy, Vol. 23 No. 1 pp. 59–72,
DOI: [Link]
29 Id.

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

918 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

Section 248 30 of the Companies Act to remove such entities from the register of
companies. 31

Section 248(1) empowers the Registrar of Companies to strike off the name of any
company that has not commenced business within one year of incorporation or has
not carried out any operations for two consecutive financial years and has not applied
for the status of a dormant company. Section 248(2) also allows companies themselves
to voluntarily apply for removal of their names, provided they have no outstanding
liabilities. Using these provisions, the MCA has initiated large-scale strike-off drives.

the total number of companies struck off under Section 248(2) was 16,464 in FY 2023-
24, 15,837 in FY 2024-25, and 8,648 until July 16, 2025, in FY 2025-26, totaling 40,949.
This reflects the government's ongoing efforts to clean up non-operative or dubious
corporate entities that might otherwise be misused for illicit financial activities. 32

To curb multi-layered corporate opacity, the government introduced the Companies

(Restriction on Number of Layers) Rules, 2017, 33 which generally limit companies to
no more than two layers of subsidiaries (subject to specified exceptions and class-
based exemptions). This rule was aimed at preventing complex pyramids of
companies that can be used to hide beneficial ownership or funnel value through
chains of entities, and it gives regulators a statutory basis to question and unwind
corporate structures that appear engineered for concealment.

The Government issued the Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, 34 effective 2

November 2018, to tighten compliance and curb misuse of the corporate registry. The
Ordinance restores the requirement for a certificate of commencement of business
under Section 10A 35 of the Companies Act, 2013, a provision that had earlier been
removed in the name of ease of doing business.

30 Companies Act, 2013, § 248

31 Identification of Shell Companies, TaxGuru, [Link]
[Link] (last visited Nov. 22, 2025).
32 Id.
33 Companies (Restriction on Number of Layers) Rules, 2017 (India)
34 Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018
35 Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, § 10A

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

919 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

Alongside reinstating Section 10A, 36 the Ordinance strengthens accountability by

targeting failures such as non-filing of charges, poor maintenance of statutory records,
and the failure of newly incorporated companies to commence business. These
measures are intended to make it easier for authorities to identify and weed out
dormant or shell entities from the corporate register

MCA, by way of a notification dated 18 August 2022, introduced the Companies

(Incorporation) Third Amendment Rules, 2022, 37 which amended the Companies
(Incorporation) Rules, 2014 by inserting a new Rule 25B. 38 This insertion strengthens
the ROC power to carry out physical verification of a company’s registered office,
especially in cases where there is suspicion that the company may be a shell entity.

Under this new Rule 25B, when the ROC considers the information or documents
submitted on the MCA-21 portal, he or she may decide to physically visit the address
declared as the registered office of a company. During this verification, the ROC is
required to conduct the inspection in the presence of two independent witnesses from
the local area, and if necessary, can call upon local police for assistance.

The rule also establishes a concrete consequence if the physical office is found to be
incapable of receiving or acknowledging communications — for example, if the
address is not genuine or is non-functional. In such cases, the ROC must issue a notice
to the company and all its directors, informing them that it intends to remove the
company’s name from the register. The company then has 30 days to respond (submit
representations and supporting documents) before the ROC may proceed to strike it
off, under Section 248 of the Companies Act.

B. THE PREVENTION OF MONEY-LAUNDERING ACT (PMLA), 2002

The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) plays a central role in India’s
fight against shell companies that are used to hide illicit funds or disguise unlawful
transactions. While the Companies Act helps detect and deregister inactive entities,
PMLA directly targets the financial crimes for which shell companies are often used,

36
Companies (Incorporation) Fourth Amendment Rules, 2018, MCA Notification No. F. No.
1/13/2013 CL-V, Part-I, [Link] (18 December 2018)
37 Companies (Incorporation) Third Amendment Rules, 2022
38 Companies (Incorporation) Third Amendment Rules, 2022, r. 25B

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

920 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

particularly money laundering, concealment of proceeds of crime, and layering of

financial transactions through complex corporate structures.39

Under PMLA, money laundering is defined broadly to include any attempt to conceal,
possess, acquire, or use the “proceeds of crime.” 40 Shell companies frequently serve
as intermediaries in such schemes by routing illegal money through bank accounts,
creating fictitious invoices, or acting as nominee owners of assets. Because PMLA
criminalises not only the handling of illicit money but also the act of projecting it as
legitimate, any shell company involved in these processes falls squarely within its
scope.

A key feature of PMLA is its power of provisional attachment. When enforcement

authorities suspect that a shell company is being used to hold or transfer the proceeds
of crime, they can freeze bank accounts, properties, or any assets connected to that
entity. 41 This attachment prevents the shell company or its controllers from moving or
dissipating the money.

PMLA also grants the Enforcement Directorate (ED) wide investigative powers.
Officers may summon individuals, inspect records, and seize documents from
registered offices of shell companies or from their corporate service providers. 42 Given
that many shell companies rely on dummy directors or layered ownership, these
investigatory powers allow ED to penetrate beyond the façade, identify the true
beneficial owners, and connect the entity to a predicate offence such as corruption,
fraud, tax evasion, or public fund misappropriation.

Another powerful aspect of PMLA is its ability to pierce corporate structures. Even if
a shell company is merely a “paper entity,” PMLA permits prosecution of the
individuals who control or benefit from it. 43 Directors, shadow directors, accountants,
and intermediaries may all face liability. PMLA does not treat the shell company as
the end point — instead, it allows investigators to follow the money through every

39 The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 3

40 Id.
41 The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 5
42 The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 17
43 The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 70

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

921 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

layer of ownership. This is crucial because many shell networks use multiple
companies to obscure the trail; PMLA empowers authorities to look through these
layers and identify the final beneficiaries.

Further, PMLA imposes strict reporting obligations on financial institutions, banks,

and intermediaries. These entities must maintain records of transactions, verify the
identity of beneficiaries, and report suspicious behaviours to the Financial Intelligence
Unit (FIU-IND). 44 When a shell company engages in unusual cash flows, sudden fund
transfers, or high-value transactions without a clear business purpose, these reports
act as early alarms, helping regulators identify shell companies long before criminal
prosecution begins.

PMLA also supports international cooperation, which is essential because many shell
companies operate across jurisdictions. The Act allows Indian authorities to request
information, freeze assets, or seek assistance from foreign governments under mutual
legal assistance treaties. 45 Since shell companies often hold property or bank accounts
abroad, these provisions allow Indian enforcement agencies to trace funds globally
and link offshore shells to domestic offenders.

C. THE BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) AMENDMENT ACT,

2016

The 2016 amendment to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 198846
helps curb the misuse of shell companies by targeting the core purpose for which
many such entities are created, hiding beneficial ownership and routing unaccounted
money. The amendment widens the definition of a “benami transaction” under
Section 2(9) to include situations where the real beneficiary provides the consideration
but the property is held in another’s name to evade law. 47 This directly affects shell
companies that hold assets or funds on behalf of undisclosed owners, making such
structures liable to prosecution.

44 The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 12, 12A, 12AA

45 The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, § 58 & 59
46 The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
47 Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, § 2(9)

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

922 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

The amendment also empowers authorities to take swift action. Sections 24 and 27
allow for provisional attachment and eventual confiscation of benami property,
preventing shell companies from being used as long-term parking vehicles for illicit
assets. 48 The creation of an expanded enforcement mechanism through Sections 18–23
enables deeper investigation into layered ownership, nominee directors, and fictitious
shareholders typically used in shell company networks. 49

Finally, the deterrent effect of stringent penalties under Section 53 — imprisonment

up to seven years and heavy fines — makes it significantly riskier to use shell
companies for benami purposes. 50 By reducing anonymity and tightening
enforcement, the 2016 amendment substantially restricts the misuse of shell
companies.

D. THE BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND

ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX ACT, 2015

The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax
Act, 2015 51 curbs the misuse of shell companies by targeting the concealment of
foreign assets and income through opaque corporate structures abroad. Many Indian
residents historically used offshore shell companies to hold assets anonymously, route
unaccounted money, or layer transactions in secrecy jurisdictions. The Act removes
the incentives for such practices by imposing strict disclosure requirements and harsh
consequences for non-compliance.

A key feature is the obligation under Section 4 to disclose all foreign income and
assets, including those held “indirectly” through entities such as shell companies. 52
This prevents individuals from hiding ownership behind nominee shareholders or
layered corporate structures abroad. Failure to disclose such interests leads to taxation
at a penal rate of 30% under Section 3, along with an additional penalty of three times

48 Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, § 24 and § 27

49 Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, §§ 18-23
50 Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, § 53
51 The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015
52 The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, § 4

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

923 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

the tax amount under Section 41. 53 The Act also criminalises non-disclosure under
Section 49, with imprisonment ranging from three to ten years. 54 This significantly
raises the cost of maintaining undisclosed foreign shell entities.

Additionally, the Act’s definition of “beneficial owner,” aligned with the Income Tax
Act, 55 enables authorities to pierce the corporate veil and identify the real natural
person behind offshore shell companies. The stringent reporting obligations in annual
returns ensure continuous surveillance of foreign holdings, making it difficult to park
assets in shell entities without detection.

IX. SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings and analysis of existing frameworks, several suggestions can be
made to improve India’s approach to dealing with shell companies.

• Statutory Definition: A comprehensive statutory definition of a "shell

company" should be introduced in the Companies Act, 2013, to clarify the
scope and nature of these entities. This would allow regulators to better
identify and act against such companies. An unambiguous legal definition
will help to remove the grey areas that currently exist in regulatory
practices, improving both enforcement and accountability.

• Enhanced Technological Integration: To combat the increasing

sophistication of shell companies, India must explore the use of blockchain
technology and artificial intelligence in regulatory practices. These
technologies can be used to track the ownership structures of companies,
enabling more accurate identification of shell companies and their illicit
activities. Blockchain could also provide a transparent and immutable
record of transactions, reducing the chances of financial crimes.

• International Cooperation and Information Sharing: Strengthening

international cooperation between Indian authorities and other

53 The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, § 3
and 41
54 The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, § 49
55 Income-Tax Act, 1961, Explanation 4 to Section 139(1)

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

924 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

jurisdictions is critical. Shell companies often operate across borders, and

their misuse is difficult to trace without coordinated action. India should
expand its efforts in bilateral and multilateral forums to facilitate
information sharing, particularly with countries that host financial secrecy
jurisdictions.

• Public Awareness and Education: Public awareness campaigns should be

launched to educate businesses and the general public about the risks
associated with shell companies. Many entities unintentionally become
involved with shell companies due to a lack of understanding of the
potential legal and financial repercussions. Educating stakeholders on the
dangers of these structures and encouraging compliance with
transparency regulations could reduce the inadvertent use of shell
companies.

• Stronger Penalties and Enforcement: A more robust enforcement

mechanism is needed to deter the use of shell companies for illicit
activities. This includes increased penalties for corporate service providers
who fail to carry out proper due diligence when setting up companies.
Furthermore, enforcement agencies should be given greater resources and
training to effectively tackle the misuse of shell companies, especially with
regard to complex ownership structures that hide the true beneficiaries.

• Revisiting and Expanding the Companies (Restriction on Number of

Layers) Rules: The government’s introduction of the Companies
(Restriction on Number of Layers) Rules, 2017, should be revisited and
expanded to further limit the complexity of corporate structures. By
restricting the number of subsidiaries or shell entities an individual or
company can create, it would be easier for authorities to track the flow of
assets and money.

X. CONCLUSION

The analysis of shell companies within the Indian regulatory framework reveals that
while such entities may serve legitimate corporate purposes, their opacity makes them

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

925 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

highly susceptible to misuse. India’s response has been increasingly proactive,

combining statutory reforms, enhanced disclosure obligations, physical verification
mechanisms, and stringent financial-crime legislation to identify and deter illicit shell
activity.

Measures under the Companies Act, PMLA, the Benami Amendment Act, and the
Black Money Act collectively strengthen transparency, accountability, and the tracing
of beneficial ownership. Yet, enforcement gaps, evolving evasion techniques, and the
absence of a statutory definition continue to pose challenges. Going forward, India
must focus on harmonised regulation, technology-driven detection, and robust inter-
agency coordination to effectively unmask and prevent abusive shell structures.

XI. REFERENCES

• Baker, R. (2016). Shell Companies and the Panama Papers: What We Can Learn.
International Financial Law Review, 29(6), 45-60.

• Bhattacharya, S., & Moudgil, R. (2019). The Legal Framework for Shell
Companies in India: A Critical Analysis. Indian Journal of Corporate Law,
25(2), 107-125.

• Gupta, P. (2019). Corporate Governance and Shell Companies in India: A

Regulatory Perspective. Journal of Business Law and Ethics, 21(4), 289-305.

• Kaye, A. (2017). The Role of Shell Companies in Money Laundering and Tax
Evasion: A Global Perspective. Journal of Financial Crimes, 25(1), 34-48.

• Kumar, R., & Banerjee, M. (2022). The Regulation of Shell Companies in India:
Challenges and Reforms. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 10(3), 75-
92.

• Sharma, S. (2021). The Impact of Financial Secrecy on Shell Companies and Tax
Havens. International Journal of Economic and Financial Studies, 13(2), 82-
98.

• Sengupta, A. (2020). Shell Companies in India: A Legal and Regulatory

Overview. National Law Journal, 18(5), 102-115.

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)

926 LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research [Vol. III Issue IV]

• Singh, P., & Kapoor, R. (2021). Technological Interventions in the Detection of

Shell Companies: Blockchain and AI. Journal of Financial Regulation, 22(2),
133-145.

• Zohar, N., & Milgrom, M. (2018). Corporate Transparency and the Use of Shell
Companies. Financial Transparency Review, 31(4), 70-85.

• Bhattacharya, S. (2019). Regulating Shell Companies: A Comparative Study of

India and Global Approaches. Global Journal of Business Law, 14(3), 61-75.

• Gupta, P., & Yadav, A. (2020). The Rise of Shell Companies and Their Role in
Financial Fraud. Journal of Corporate Fraud, 28(1), 50-65.

• Sharma, R. (2018). Regulating Cross-Border Financial Structures: India’s Legal

Approach to Shell Companies. Indian Corporate Law Review, 30(6), 151-165.

• Kaye, A. (2020). Financial Crimes and Shell Companies: The Global Landscape.
Journal of Financial Crime Research, 22(5), 200-210.

• Kumar, R., & Das, A. (2021). Examining the Role of Shell Companies in
Financial Scandals: Case Studies from India. Journal of Financial Crime and
Regulation, 33(2), 120-136.

• Baker, R. (2017). Panama Papers: A Global Scandal and Its Legal Ramifications.
International Journal of Law and Society, 25(3), 58-72.

© 2025. LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research (ISSN: 2583-7753)