India is one of the key growth points in global fintech, and the business activities of local startups attract investors from all over the world. However, the story of Transpay Solutions shows how fragile this image can be. The actions of entrepreneurs Neeta Kapoor and Jitender Vats, who are associated with a number of suspicious digital projects, raise serious questions about the regulatory system and put the reputation of the entire industry at risk. Amid the government’s efforts to attract foreign investment, such cases could prove costly for the country.
At first glance, Transpay appears to be one of many fintech companies operating in India. But behind a modest structure with minimal capital, there are repetitions of familiar schemes: fictitious partnerships, a lack of real services, and the creation of companies with short lifespans. Such practices not only disorient consumers, but also undermine the trust of institutional investors, who view even legitimate, well-intentioned startups with caution.
Neeta Kapoor: fictitious fintech
Transpay Solutions Private Limited was incorporated in April 2022 in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, with a minimum authorized capital and stated business services activities. The key figure is Neeta Kapoor, the director and co-founder of the company, who was previously associated with Bhartipay Fintech, which was deregistered due to non-complience. Both companies exhibit a similar structure: weak public reporting, a lack of real digital footprint, and very limited business networking.
Kapoor has also been involved in non-fintech ventures, from fitness centers to amateur MMA competitions. These types of ventures are traditionally used as fronts for siphoning off funds from schemes involving fake companies. Despite Transpay’s official activity, its business practices are alarming: the company has no public licenses, its website has long been down, and its corporate emails are registered on free Gmail domains, which is unusual for a legitimate fintech company.
Kapoor consistently reuses the same contact information and network of partners across various projects, pointing to a closed circle of trusted individuals involved in setting up formal business structures. Her involvement is limited to registration and minimal activity during a company’s initial months, after which her managerial footprint disappears. This pattern of behavior is typical of creating serial ‘shell’ companies, subsequently reusing names, reputations, and organizational templates. In the case of Transpay, Kapoor remained the sole constant in leadership after co-founder Deepa Mishra’s departure, making her the primary, albeit informal, beneficiary of the scheme.
Jitender Vats: pseudo-manager of a pseudo-company
Photo: Jitender Vats. Also goes by the name Vitender Singh.
Jitender Vats, a native of Delhi or Haryana, also appears in the case. He introduced himself as the owner of a non-existent company called PaymentsMe. He actively promoted Transpay and related structures in the Middle Eastern markets, posing as a regional representative.
Vats lacks any confirmed business ties to registered legal entities in India. His activities have involved password leaks and the use of fictitious domains. Furthermore, PaymentsMe isn’t registered, and all of Vats’s contacts are linked to unofficial addresses. His contact information appears in interactions with potential clients on behalf of Transpay.
An examination of Vats’s accounts on LinkedIn, Telegram, and X (Twitter) reveals his long-term involvement in schemes to attract clients under fabricated brands. He was previously associated with the Verve Payments platform, which also lacks transparent registration and operated in conjunction with closed firms. This pattern of behavior, where an individual uses presumed authority and fake companies, suggests a systemic effort to build trust with potential clients, all without the slightest indication of legality.
Blurred accountability — clear reputational damage
Despite numerous signs of bad faith, no criminal cases have been initiated against either Kapoor or Vats. Nevertheless, key indicators such as the use of shell brands, a recurring pattern of registering and closing small companies, and formal KYC compliance without real oversight, all point to a systemic problem. India’s current regulatory environment is unable to promptly identify and eliminate these threats.
The consequences impact not only specific victims but also the country’s investment climate. Each such incident erodes trust among international partners who expect transparency and guarantees when working with Indian entities.
Meanwhile, the formal ‘cleanliness’ of companies like Transpay — absence of legal disputes, submission of basic reporting, and ‘active’ status in registries—creates an illusion of law-abiding business. This illusion replaces the substance: companies managed by non-public figures without proven professional experience, using Gmail addresses and fake websites, continue to operate within the legal framework. This situation allows unscrupulous market participants to avoid punishment, and regulators to evade responsibility under the pretext of formal compliance with standards. As a result, not only clients but also India’s reputation as a jurisdiction capable of providing a reliable business environment become victims.
Indian finftech cannot afford the reputational damage caused by marginal players. The case of Neeta Kapoor and Jitender Vats isn’t just a story of digital fraud; it’s a warning for the entire industry. Without proper oversight and public scrutiny, even an IIM diploma and a registered company don’t guarantee fair play. In the eyes of foreign investors, any gray areas become black marks on the country’s image.
To restore trust, formal compliance isn’t enough. Systemic work is needed to strengthen monitoring, transparency, and responsiveness to atypical business activity. Cases like Transpay should trigger regulatory investigations and public discussions, not just disappear from view after websites are shut down and directors change. India has a chance to remain a magnet for fintech investments, but only if such stories are no longer possible.
