Crypto Fraud Recovery: FCA Secures £851,402 in Confiscation Orders
Two convictions, £851,402 in confiscation orders—and a £689,000 question mark. The FCA says recovered money is going back to victims of crypto-investment fraud, but an order to pay is not the same as cash in hand. Here’s what the recovery means, what remains unknown, and why the distinction matters.
London, England
Oct 4, 2026
The Financial Conduct Authority has obtained confiscation orders totalling £851,402.27 against two men convicted over a fraudulent crypto-investment operation that cost at least 65 investors approximately £1.54 million.
The orders are a substantial step towards returning money to victims. They are not confirmation that the full amount has been collected—or that investors will recover their losses in full.
According to the FCA’s announcement, Southwark Crown Court ordered Raymondip Bedi to pay £603,404.28 and Patrick Mavanga £247,997.99 on 28 September 2026. The orders were made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, known as POCA.
The regulator says recovered funds are being returned directly to identified victims. Its announcement does not provide a breakdown of amounts collected, payments completed or the basis on which money will be allocated.
The fraud behind the recovery
Between February 2017 and June 2019, Bedi and Mavanga operated an unauthorised cold-calling scheme through entities including CCX Capital and Astaria Group LLP. Investors were offered fraudulent cryptoasset investment opportunities.
The confiscation proceedings followed their convictions and prison sentences for conspiracy to commit fraud and breaches of the general prohibition under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That prohibition generally prevents a person from carrying on a regulated activity in the UK unless authorised or exempt.
The distinction is important: this was not simply an investment that performed badly. The recovery action follows criminal convictions arising from a fraudulent operation.
Why £851,402 is not the same as full compensation
The combined orders represent approximately 55% of the reported £1.54 million loss, leaving a difference of roughly £689,000.
That comparison establishes the scale of the recovery effort. It does not establish how much any particular investor will receive, or whether the remaining difference is irrecoverable.
Confiscation and compensation answer different legal questions. Under section 6 of POCA, the court determines whether a convicted defendant benefited from criminal conduct and, where the statutory conditions are met, makes a confiscation order. The process is directed at recovering criminal benefit, rather than calculating a separate damages award for every victim.
Under section 7, the recoverable amount can be limited by the defendant’s available assets. An offender’s criminal benefit, the amount available for confiscation and investors’ losses therefore need not be identical.
The FCA’s announcement does not set out the court’s benefit calculations or asset assessments. It would consequently be premature to describe the difference between the loss figure and the orders as a final recovery shortfall.
An order to pay is not money paid
Bedi and Mavanga have three months to pay. The FCA says non-payment could result in default prison sentences of up to five years for Bedi and up to two years for Mavanga.
Those penalties support enforcement, but imprisonment does not put money into investors’ accounts. Serving a default sentence does not, by itself, extinguish the outstanding confiscation liability.
The practical distinction is between three stages: money ordered, money collected and money distributed. The announcement establishes the first and says recovered funds are being returned to victims, but does not give a complete account of the latter two.
For investors, the outstanding questions are concrete: how much has been recovered, which losses have been recognised, and how will any insufficient pool of money be divided?
Could further assets be recovered?
The present orders do not necessarily close off further recovery. In qualifying circumstances, section 22 of POCA allows a court to reconsider the available amount where an earlier confiscation order was constrained by insufficient assets.
That is a statutory mechanism, not evidence that additional assets exist in this case or that the FCA intends to pursue a further application.
Other recovery routes, such as civil proceedings or insolvency distributions, may also be relevant depending on the circumstances. Each has its own requirements, costs and enforcement risks; any overlapping payments must be accounted for so that the same loss is not recovered twice.
The FCA has secured enforceable orders worth more than £851,000 and identified a route for recovered funds to reach victims. The next meaningful measure of success is how much actually reaches them. Until collection and distribution are clearer, the orders should be understood as a significant recovery milestone—not full restitution.