OnmaxDT in Sri Lanka: Asset Restraint and the Unresolved Recovery Question

Evidence cut-off: 28 August 2026

Method and status. This documentary case study distinguishes allegations, regulatory determinations, reported procedural orders and final judicial findings. It does not determine civil or criminal liability. No interviews were conducted for this edition. It is independent academic and investigative analysis, not legal, financial, investment or recovery advice, and has not been reviewed or endorsed by Cardiff Metropolitan University. Documentary corrections may be submitted through the corrections channel; material corrections, clarifications and later developments will be identified in the article’s update record.

The accessible record reports interim preservation but does not establish verified redress. The Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) made a regulatory determination; investigators brought the matter before court; suspects were arrested and granted bail; and accounts and land were reportedly restrained. No final civil or criminal liability finding, final forfeiture, realisation or repatriation of assets, balance in the reported custody account, or verified post-investigation distribution from restrained or recovered assets to claimants was located through 28 August 2026.

That distinction matters because the language of recovery has repeatedly moved ahead of the evidence. A frozen account is not a forfeited balance. Land protected from transfer is not cash available for distribution. Property identified by investigators is not property proved to be criminal proceeds. A proposed payment plan is not restitution. This case therefore provides stronger evidence of asset preservation than of claimant payment.

It also exposes a conceptual error that should not be carried into the wider article series. OnmaxDT’s use of cryptocurrency does not make the case depend on whether cryptocurrency is legal tender in Sri Lanka. Section 83C of the Banking Act regulates the structure of a prohibited scheme and defines “monetary value” broadly. The decisive questions are how participation and benefits were organised, which assets can be linked to the alleged conduct, and whether restrained value can be converted into lawful repayment against verified claims.

The answer in brief

Three conclusions are supported at the present evidence cut-off.

1. There is an authoritative regulatory determination, but no located final judgment of individual liability. CBSL published on 21 March 2023 that, following an investigation, it had determined that OnmaxDT and its directors, founders and promoters conducted or had conducted a scheme prohibited by section 83C of the Banking Act. CBSL asked the Attorney-General to consider criminal proceedings. The date of the underlying determination was not stated (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2023a). Arrests, remand, bail, warrants, investigation directions and asset restraints were later reported, but none is a conviction (Daily Mirror, 2023a; Ada Derana, 2023b, 2023c; Sri Lanka Mirror, 2023a, 2023d; Hiru News, 2026a, 2026b).

2. The largest circulating numbers are not interchangeable. CID was reported in April 2023 as saying that more than US$100 million had been transacted through cryptocurrency wallets; that was transaction volume, not adjudicated loss. At the 9 February 2026 hearing, State Counsel reportedly said that 20,931 complaints had been collected and alleged losses exceeded Rs11 billion. Neither figure is a judicial assessment of net loss (Sri Lanka Mirror, 2023a; Hiru News, 2026a, 2026b).

3. Restraint is documented more strongly than recovery. Reports describe suspension of local accounts, a time-limited and reportedly extended direction concerning eight Binance-linked accounts, and anti-transfer orders over land (Daily Mirror, 2023a, 2023b; Sri Lanka Mirror, 2023a, 2023d; Daily News, 2023). They do not establish Binance implementation, final forfeiture, sale and transfer into custody, or payment to claimants. A government-controlled account at CBSL was reportedly opened in December 2025, but no public balance, deposit, court-approved claims method or distribution record was located (Hiru News, 2025b).

Evidence labels used in this case study

The sources do not all prove the same kind of fact. Four labels are therefore used throughout:

• Regulatory determination means a conclusion formally announced by CBSL under its statutory process. It is more than a warning or media allegation, but it is not a criminal conviction.
• Reported court event means contemporaneous reporting of a hearing or order where the signed order and complete case file were not publicly available for inspection.
• Party or investigator submission means a claim attributed to the CID, State Counsel, defence counsel, a complainant or a promoter. It is evidence that the position was advanced, not that the court accepted it as true.
• Author analysis means an inference drawn by comparing the accessible records. It is not a judicial, regulatory or forensic conclusion.

This vocabulary is not defensive decoration. Without it, the case easily becomes a chain in which an allegation is rewritten as a court finding, a restraint becomes a recovery, and a proposed repayment becomes compensation.

What OnmaxDT was represented to be

Public descriptions of the scheme’s mechanics are less authoritative than CBSL’s legal determination, because the original platform material and full forensic record are not available. The accounts nonetheless converge on several elements.

A June 2022 reconstruction of OnmaxDT promotional material described USDT-funded packages from US$100 to US$50,000, purported daily returns of 0.75–1.25 per cent, a gross return of three times the stake over 15 months, and referral and team commissions (BehindMLM, 2022). A December 2022 Daily Mirror investigation described a local process in which representatives collected Sri Lankan rupees, sometimes in cash, while the platform displayed dollar-denominated credits. Its source said recruitment could accelerate recovery of the initial stake (Daily Mirror, 2022).

These accounts establish what was reported or promoted, not what every participant experienced. They should not be used to claim that all funds followed the same route, that displayed balances represented real assets, or that promised returns were paid.

A later defence submission offered a second account and exposed a material discrepancy. At the 28 May 2024 hearing, counsel reportedly described deposits made on a promise of three times the amount within 18 months and said funds had been placed through Binance and cryptocurrency. Earlier promotional material had given 15 months. The discrepancy should remain visible: OnmaxDT was represented as returning three times the stake, but the accessible sources do not establish one uniform term (Ceylon Today, 2024).

Cryptocurrency appears here in at least three possible roles: a payment rail, a unit displayed in an account, and an asset or exchange route through which funds were placed. The evidence does not support describing an “OnmaxDT coin” or proprietary token. Nor does it show that cryptocurrency itself generated the promised returns. The safer conclusion is that cryptocurrency language and infrastructure formed part of the scheme’s presentation and movement of value.

Australian registration was not financial authorisation

OnmaxDT was sometimes presented as Australian. Official records confirm that ONMAXDT PTY LTD, ACN 653 360 957 and ABN 34 653 360 957, existed as an Australian private company. Its ABN was active from 2 September 2021 until cancellation on 8 June 2023. ASIC published a notice on 13 June 2023 that it had received an application for voluntary deregistration (Australian Business Register, 2026; Australian Securities and Investments Commission, 2023).

Corporate registration and permission to offer an investment are different legal facts. ASIC’s Moneysmart investor-alert data later classified OnmaxDT as “Unlicensed”, with an entry date of 30 September 2024. The alert-list explanation states that listed entities do not hold a current Australian financial-services or credit licence and are not permitted to offer investments in Australia (ASIC Moneysmart, 2026).

The Australian and Sri Lankan entities must be kept separate. Australian records concern ONMAXDT PTY LTD. Sri Lankan court reporting refers separately to Onmax DT Private Limited and to individuals described as directors or promoters. The available evidence does not permit every act, asset or representation to be assigned automatically to one legal person.

What CBSL determined—and what it did not

CBSL’s official webpage dates the OnmaxDT notice to 21 March 2023. The one-page notice states that CBSL had received complaints, investigated Fast3Cycle International, Sports Chain and OnmaxDT under section 83C of the Banking Act, and determined that the entities and their directors, founders and promoters conducted prohibited schemes. It then states that CBSL had requested the Attorney-General to consider instituting criminal proceedings (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2023a).

The procedural verbs are important:

• CBSL investigated and determined the regulatory status of the scheme;
• CBSL requested that the Attorney-General consider criminal proceedings;
• the notice did not announce a filed criminal charge, conviction, confiscation or compensation order.

CBSL again included OnmaxDT in its 5 August 2026 consolidated prohibited-scheme notice while announcing a new determination concerning TM App. That re-listing confirms OnmaxDT’s continuing regulatory classification; it is not a new OnmaxDT determination, court order or recovery event (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2026).

Why legal-tender status is not the controlling issue

Section 83C(1) of the Banking Act prohibits initiating, offering, promoting, advertising, conducting, financing, managing or directing a scheme in which a participant contributes money or monetary value and the promised benefits depend largely on growth in participants or their contributions. The statutory definition of “monetary value” includes a medium of exchange whether or not redeemable in money, stored value, a payment instrument and credit to an account (Sri Lanka, 1988, s.83C).

On a textual reading, that breadth makes it difficult to argue that using USDT, an exchange account or a dollar-denominated app balance necessarily places a recruitment-dependent scheme beyond section 83C. No published OnmaxDT judgment was located that decides this point, so it remains statutory analysis rather than a case holding.

This must be kept separate from CBSL’s cryptocurrency policy. CBSL stated on 29 March 2023 that cryptocurrency was unregulated, was not recognised as an asset class and was not legal tender in Sri Lanka; it also stated that it had not licensed cryptocurrency exchanges, custody services, advisory services or related schemes (Central Bank of Sri Lanka, 2023b). Those warnings describe regulatory and consumer risk. They do not mean that every cryptocurrency transaction is, merely by its subject matter, a proven criminal offence.

Section 83C also provides criminal penalties upon conviction, CBSL investigative powers and a route for a senior police officer to ask the High Court sitting in Colombo for an ex parte order prohibiting the scheme conduct listed in section 83C(1). That last power restrains conduct; it is not a general statutory power to freeze bank accounts or land. A criminal fine imposed following conviction would also be different from compensation paid to claimants (Sri Lanka, 1988, s.83C(1)–(9)).

The separate asset-recovery framework matters. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 5 of 2006 expressly includes an offence under section 83C within its definition of “unlawful activity”. This means section 83C conduct can serve as the underlying unlawful activity for a money-laundering investigation, but it does not automatically prove money laundering: the prosecution must separately establish the required dealing with property and state of knowledge. The Act’s freezing process preserves property on an interim threshold; forfeiture under that regime follows a separate conviction-dependent process. A freeze is therefore neither a transfer of title nor proof that a claimant will be paid (Sri Lanka, 2006, ss.3, 7–8, 13, 35(f)).

The Proceeds of Crime Act No. 5 of 2025, brought into operation on 1 June 2025, now supplies additional preservation, seizure, judicial-freeze, post-conviction, non-conviction-based forfeiture and victim-claim routes. It expressly includes virtual assets within property. Its property-recovery provisions can address proceeds of pre-commencement conduct that was already an offence, subject to safeguards against retrospective criminal punishment. No OnmaxDT-specific filing or order under that Act was located. It would therefore be wrong to say that the Act has already frozen, forfeited or returned OnmaxDT property (Government of Sri Lanka, 2025; Sri Lanka, 2025, ss.3–4, 71–75, 117–132).

Because the signed OnmaxDT orders were not publicly available, this article does not assign each reported account or land restraint to a specific statutory provision. The reports establish procedural preservation at the level stated; they do not disclose enough to reconstruct the complete legal basis, duration, renewal history or final disposition.

Selected procedural chronology

The table separates the date of the reported event from the date on which it was published. Except for CBSL and parliamentary material, the signed orders or complete court record were not accessible; the entries are therefore reports of procedural events.

The 6 February 2025 report also stated, without identifying a court, case number, filing date or charging document, that “cases” had been filed against 12 suspected directors. No charge sheet or indictment was accessible for inspection; the precise charging status therefore could not be verified (Hiru News, 2025a).

On 14 May 2024, OnmaxDT was also raised in Parliament. The Leader of the House said the matter would be referred to CBSL and the Ministry of Finance. That exchange confirms political attention, not a new investigation result or judicial order (Parliament of Sri Lanka, 2024).

The numbers: what each figure actually measures

OnmaxDT reporting has accumulated figures from different dates, populations and accounting categories. They should not be combined into one estimate.

The best-defined current public scale is the reported February 2026 complaint position: 20,931 complaints alleging more than Rs11 billion. Even that number is not a judicial assessment of net loss. It may contain disputed claims, gross deposits, prior withdrawals or duplicate evidential issues that only a verified claims process can resolve.

The complaint counts also cannot be used as a clean growth series. Defence lists, platform records and police complaints measure different populations. A decrease or increase between reports may reflect a different collection window or classification rather than a change in the number of affected people.

From identification to restitution: the missing steps

Recovery is a sequence, not a single event:

identified or traced → restrained → proved and finally forfeited or otherwise made available → realised or transferred into custody → matched to valid claims → distributed

The public OnmaxDT record reaches the first two stages more clearly than the later ones.

Accounts

On 28 March 2023, the Colombo Chief Magistrate reportedly ordered 57 accounts suspended. On 19 April, the court reportedly directed Binance to suspend transactions for six months in eight named exchange accounts after CID said more than Rs430 million had been deposited into them. The report did not establish the balance on the order date. The direction was reportedly to be sent to Binance’s chief executive by email. The court was reported to have extended the direction for a further six months on 9 October. Those domestic orders and proposed notice do not by themselves prove implementation by the exchange, recognition in another jurisdiction or the eventual transfer or disposition of a balance (Daily Mirror, 2023a; Sri Lanka Mirror, 2023a; Daily News, 2023).

By July 2023, reports said 95 related accounts had been suspended. One said the relevant accounts were believed to have received deposits of about Rs790 million; another itemised reported credits totalling approximately Rs884.6 million and said the company account had no significant cash balance. These figures do not establish the balance actually restrained, and the scope cannot be reconciled from the reports. The 95 should not be added to the earlier 57 because the later count appears cumulative or differently scoped (Ada Derana, 2023a; Sri Lanka Mirror, 2023c).

Land and other property

In September 2023, the court reportedly prohibited the sale or transfer of 20 properties attributed to a reported director. Investigators valued them at Rs620 million, while another report used Rs630 million. A further order in October reportedly covered eight properties valued at about Rs88.8 million (Daily Mirror, 2023b; Sri Lanka Mirror, 2023d).

Later reports described additional transfers under investigation, overseas-property leads and, by February 2026, 31 parcels reportedly frozen in High Court proceedings. These sets may overlap. They cannot be added to construct a total property count or total value without the orders and schedules.

The February 2026 figure of nearly Rs2.6 billion is especially important. One report described it as property identified by the CID and said 31 land parcels had been frozen; another connected it to the suspects’ proposed payment plan. Neither description supports saying that investigators had recovered Rs2.6 billion in cash. Property can be difficult to value, prove, realise and distribute, particularly where title, third-party rights or alleged transfers are disputed (Hiru News, 2026a, 2026b).

Overseas tracing

On 11 December 2024, the CID reportedly told the Magistrate’s Court that property had been identified abroad, including in Australia, and that Interpol assistance was being sought. That establishes reported tracing activity. It does not establish a foreign preservation order, confiscation, sale or repatriation (Ada Derana, 2024c).

Australian corporate and investor-warning records do not fill this gap. They establish company and licensing history, not asset recovery. No public Australian restraint or confiscation record connected to OnmaxDT was located.

The CBSL account

The clearest reported step towards a distribution mechanism came on 3 December 2025. State Counsel reportedly told the Colombo Chief Magistrate that, with government approval, a government-controlled account had been opened at CBSL to receive funds recovered from suspects and facilitate later reimbursement (Hiru News, 2025b).

Opening an account is not the same as funding it. The public report did not identify:

• an opening balance or later balance;
• a transfer from any restrained account or asset sale;
• the legal basis on which funds would become distributable;
• a verified claimant register and method for calculating net claims;
• treatment of earlier withdrawals, referral earnings or disputed transfers;
• priority between claimants and other parties; or
• a first payment date.

No separate CBSL notice or published account statement was located. “Reportedly opened” is therefore more accurate than saying that CBSL holds recovered money for victims.

Repayment proposals were not restitution

The directors’ reported proposals form a separate strand from state recovery. In May 2024, defence counsel said 61,206 depositors could be repaid within two years if restraints were lifted. The court asked for a more comprehensive plan and supporting information. Defence counsel also reportedly claimed that US$83 million had previously been paid (NewsFirst, 2024; Ceylon Today, 2024).

The US$83 million claim should not be treated as verified restitution. In context, it appears to describe payments or withdrawals during the scheme’s operation rather than post-investigation distributions from restrained assets. The public report identified no independent transaction audit and did not record the court adopting that claim as a finding.

State Counsel reportedly rejected the proposed refund method in February 2025, arguing that a lawful programme required assets to be secured and presented through the legal process (Hiru News, 2025a). Later judicial directions to devise relief or repayment mechanisms were case-management steps. No court-approved plan or evidence of execution was located.

This separation is essential. Voluntary repayment proposed by suspects, preservation of alleged proceeds by investigators and court-ordered restitution after adjudication are different legal routes. The public record does not show any one of them reaching completed distribution.

Latest located procedural position

The latest located public procedural reports concern the 9 February 2026 hearing, at which further investigation and a fresh warrant for one absent suspect were reportedly ordered. No later disposition was located through 28 August 2026.

Five reported directors were arrested and remanded in November 2023 and later granted bail. An individual alleged to have maintained the OnmaxDT database was reportedly arrested in Dubai and brought to Sri Lanka in February 2025. On 3 December 2025, the court was reportedly informed that 15 suspects had been released on bail, and the Magistrate reportedly ordered warrants for several absent suspects (Ada Derana, 2023b, 2023c, 2025; Hiru News, 2025b, 2026a, 2026b).

The accessible record does not establish:

• a public charge sheet or indictment;
• a trial judgment, conviction or acquittal;
• a civil liability judgment;
• an appeal;
• a final forfeiture or confiscation order;
• implementation or continuation of the reported Binance restraint;
• foreign asset restraint or repatriation;
• money transferred into the reported CBSL custody account; or
• a completed payment to claimants.

This formulation should not be inverted into a claim that authorities or courts have done nothing. The record shows investigation, arrests, bail supervision, complaint collection, property tracing, interim restraints and repeated repayment planning. The problem is that the public outcome trail stops before final liability and verified redress.

Public denials and defence positions

CBSL’s determination does not remove the need to record material public denials accurately.

In July 2023, two people described as investors or promoters reportedly said OnmaxDT was not a pyramid scheme, asserted that CBSL had acted without a proper investigation, said the Australian business was continuing, and characterised the Sri Lankan company as a real-estate enterprise (Sri Lanka Mirror, 2023b). Those were their attributed positions, not an authenticated company pleading or a judicial finding.

The defence’s later submissions described the alleged three-times-return representation and proposed a repayment process while contesting the practical effect of the restraints. They must not be rewritten as an admission of fraud, proof of the full claimant total or proof that repayments occurred.

No fresh pre-publication correspondence was undertaken for this edition. The article therefore does not state that any person failed or refused to respond. Documentary corrections and relevant public positions can be added through the corrections process.

Implications for the wider Sri Lankan case series

OnmaxDT supports four propositions that the master article should test against Sports Chain, MTFE and Fast3Cycle International.

First, consumer protection can be analytically separated from legal-tender recognition. Section 83C is concerned with a recruitment- and contribution-dependent scheme and uses a broad concept of monetary value. Separate money-laundering and proceeds-of-crime laws address suspected proceeds and expressly reach property or virtual assets. Cryptocurrency can supply the presentation or payment route without becoming the only legal issue.

Second, warnings and regulatory determinations are not recovery outcomes. CBSL’s March 2023 determination is clear and legally significant, but the later restitution problem turns on investigation, ownership, cross-border cooperation, restraint, adjudication and claims administration.

Third, public reporting needs a recovery vocabulary. Identified, traced, suspended, frozen, seized, forfeited, realised, transferred and distributed should never be used as synonyms. The OnmaxDT record shows how one Rs2.6 billion figure can migrate from property identification to “recovered” money without evidence of cash or payment.

Fourth, an outcomes ledger is missing. A public case record should connect complaints, alleged loss, verified net claims, assets restrained, assets finally made available, money transferred into custody and distributions completed. Without that chain, the public sees large enforcement numbers but cannot determine whether financial redress is advancing.

The case therefore refines the series’ working thesis. Sri Lanka’s central problem is not simply the absence of a comprehensive cryptocurrency statute. Existing law can classify a recruitment-dependent scheme using monetary value, while separate asset-recovery law can preserve suspected proceeds. The unresolved institutional question is whether those interventions can produce a transparent, legally durable and timely route from assets to claimants.

Documents that would materially change this assessment

This article should be updated if any of the following becomes public:

• the complete Magistrate’s Court B-report and reliable case number;
• a signed account- or property-restraint order and its schedules;
• confirmation from Binance of implementation, balance and later disposition;
• a charge sheet, indictment or Attorney-General decision;
• a trial or appeal judgment;
• a High Court forfeiture, confiscation or release order;
• a foreign restraint or repatriation record;
• a statement for the reported CBSL custody account;
• a court-approved claimant methodology or repayment schedule; or
• independently verifiable evidence of the first distribution.

Until then, the proper conclusion is narrow but consequential: the accessible record documents regulatory action and asset preservation, but it does not establish a completed post-investigation distribution from restrained or recovered assets to claimants.

References

Ada Derana (2023a) ‘Court orders suspension of 95 bank accounts belonging to ONMAX DT pyramid scheme’, 14 July. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Ada Derana (2023b) ‘Five directors of “OnmaxDT” remanded’, 3 November. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Ada Derana (2023c) ‘Five OnmaxDT directors granted bail’, 16 November. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Ada Derana (2024a) ‘OnmaxDT director has secretly left the country, court told’, 15 February. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Ada Derana (2024b) ‘Details of “OnmaxDT” depositors submitted to court, CID ordered to further probe’, 9 July. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Ada Derana (2024c) ‘CID ordered to develop programme to reimburse OnmaxDT depositors’, 11 December. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Ada Derana (2025) ‘“OnmaxDT” database operator arrested in Dubai and brought to Sri Lanka’, 21 February. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

ASIC Moneysmart (2026) ‘Investor alert list’, last updated 16 March. Available at: investor alert list and downloadable alert data (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Australian Business Register (2026) ‘Current details for ABN 34 653 360 957: ONMAXDT PTY LTD’. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2023) ‘Notice of proposed deregistration: ONMAXDT PTY LTD’, 13 June. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

BehindMLM (2022) ‘OnmaxDT Review: USDT Ponzi scheme targeting Sri Lanka’, 23 June. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Central Bank of Sri Lanka (2023a) ‘Notice to the Public: Fast3Cycle International, Sport Chain and OnmaxDT’, 21 March. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Central Bank of Sri Lanka (2023b) ‘Risks of using and investing in cryptocurrency’, 29 March. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Central Bank of Sri Lanka (2026) ‘Notice to General Public on Prohibited Pyramid Schemes’, 5 August. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Ceylon Today (2024) ‘OnmaxDT directors ordered to submit depositor details to FCID’, 29 May. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Daily Mirror (2022) ‘Sri Lankans falling prey to pyramid racket called OnmaxDT’, 1 December. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Daily Mirror (2023a) ‘Pyramid scheme defrauding USD 100 million’, 28 March. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Daily Mirror (2023b) ‘Ban on transfer or sale of Rs 620 million worth properties of Onmax DT’s director’, 5 September. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Daily News (2023) ‘Court orders to freeze OnmaxDT’s Bank Accounts for six more months’, 10 October. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Daily News (2024) ‘Warrant on software engineer’, 12 January. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Government of Sri Lanka (2025) Order under section 1(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, Gazette Extraordinary No. 2438/24, 27 May. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Hiru News (2025a) ‘Attorney General rejects refund proposal by Onmax DT directors’, 6 February. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Hiru News (2025b) ‘Special Central Bank account established for Onmax DT scam victims’, 3 December. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Hiru News (2026a) ‘CID receives over 20,000 complaints in Onmax DT pyramid fraud case’, 9 February. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Hiru News (2026b) ‘Over Rs. 8 billion missing in Onmax DT pyramid scheme fraud’, 10 February. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

NewsFirst (2024) ‘OnmaxDT directors pledge to repay depositors’, 29 May. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Parliament of Sri Lanka (2024) Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 14 May 2024. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Sri Lanka (1988) Banking Act, No. 30 of 1988, as amended, s.83C. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Sri Lanka (2006) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, No. 5 of 2006. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Sri Lanka (2025) Proceeds of Crime Act, No. 5 of 2025. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Sri Lanka Mirror (2023a) ‘Court bans 8 accounts of an American financial company’, 20 April. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Sri Lanka Mirror (2023b) ‘Who’s toying with CBSL laws on pyramid schemes?’, 12 July. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Sri Lanka Mirror (2023c) ‘Onmax bosses hold Rs800mn in accounts; CID informs court’, 13 July. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Sri Lanka Mirror (2023d) ‘Court prohibits sale or transfer of 3 OnmaxDT directors’ properties’, 27 October. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Sri Lanka Mirror (2024a) ‘OnmaxDT ordered to submit plans to refund depositors’, 2 May. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).

Sri Lanka Mirror (2024b) ‘Onmax DT case : New court order for police’, 26 September. Available at: Original (Accessed: 28 August 2026).