The Enforcement Directorate has filed its first prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in the alleged ₹593 crore bank fraud and money laundering case involving accounts maintained with IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank.
The complaint names 14 individuals and business entities as accused. During the investigation, the agency has also provisionally attached assets worth approximately ₹200.80 crore.
Complaint Filed Before Special PMLA Court
The prosecution complaint was filed before the Special PMLA Court in Panchkula.
During the hearing, the court observed that the complaint and supporting documents run into thousands of pages and deferred detailed scrutiny.
The matter has been listed for August 4, 2026, when the court is expected to examine the record and consider the next stage of proceedings.
The court is also awaiting prosecution sanction concerning one of the accused.
Four Accused to Appear Through Video Conference
The court exempted the ED’s Assistant Director from personal appearance after accepting the agency’s submission regarding official duties.
It also directed that the four accused currently in judicial custody be produced through video conferencing on the next date of hearing.
Former Bank Employees and Government Official Named
The prosecution complaint names several individuals who allegedly played key roles in the suspected fraud.
Among the principal accused are:
- Ribhav Rishi, a former IDFC First Bank employee
- Abhay Kumar, a former bank employee
- Vikram Wadhwa, a real estate businessman
- Naresh Kumar, a former Superintendent in Haryana’s Panchayat Department
Other accused individuals named include:
- Swati Singla
- Abhishek Singla
- Divya Arora
- Manoj Kumar Sharma
- Ankur Sharma
Business Entities Also Named
The ED has also named several firms and companies as accused entities.
These include:
- Capco Fintech Services Partnership Firm
- RS Traders
- SRR Planning Gurus Pvt. Ltd.
- Swastik Desh Projects Partnership Firm
- Maa Vaibhav Laxmi Interiors
Investigators are examining whether these entities were used to receive, layer or invest the alleged proceeds of crime.
Case Originated From CBI FIR
The ED investigation is based on a Central Bureau of Investigation FIR concerning the alleged diversion of funds belonging to various Haryana government departments.
According to investigators, nearly ₹593 crore was allegedly siphoned through:
- Fake bills
- Forged documents
- Shell companies
- Fraudulent bank accounts
- Unauthorised banking transactions
- Multiple related business entities
The funds were allegedly moved through accounts maintained with IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank.
Proceeds Allegedly Layered Through Multiple Entities
The Enforcement Directorate alleges that the suspected proceeds of crime were routed through several companies and bank accounts to conceal their origin.
According to the agency, the money was subsequently invested in:
- Real estate
- Commercial ventures
- Bank deposits
- Other movable and immovable assets
Investigators are tracing the transaction trail to identify the ultimate beneficiaries and determine the role of each accused.
Assets Worth ₹200.80 Crore Attached
The ED has provisionally attached assets valued at approximately ₹200.80 crore for 180 days under the PMLA.
The attached assets include:
- Immovable properties worth about ₹179.80 crore
- Movable assets worth around ₹21 crore
- Bank balances
- Fixed deposits
- Other financial assets
The properties are located across:
- Chandigarh
- Mohali
- Panchkula
- Delhi
The agency alleges that these assets are connected with the accused and associated entities.
Why the Court Has Deferred Scrutiny
The prosecution complaint reportedly contains extensive banking records, company documents, property records and digital evidence.
The court has deferred scrutiny to allow sufficient time to examine:
- The complete financial trail
- Supporting documentation
- Asset attachment records
- Role of each accused
- Pending prosecution sanction
The next hearing will determine whether the court formally takes cognisance and proceeds further against the accused.
Banking and Public Fund Controls Under Focus
The case highlights major risks associated with government banking operations, including:
- Fake departmental accounts
- Forged payment instructions
- Inadequate call-back verification
- Weak maker-checker controls
- Shell company routing
- Inadequate transaction monitoring
Public departments and banks handling government funds require independent verification at every stage of account opening, payment approval and beneficiary validation.
Conclusion
The filing of the first PMLA prosecution complaint marks a significant development in the alleged ₹593 crore banking fraud investigation.
The Special PMLA Court will examine the complaint on August 4, 2026, while investigations by the ED and CBI continue.
All allegations remain subject to judicial scrutiny, and the guilt or innocence of the accused will be determined on the basis of evidence presented before the competent court.
Shunyatax Global Insight
Shunyatax Global says that fraud involving public funds usually reflects failures across multiple control layers rather than a single unauthorised transaction.
Government departments and banks should implement independent account verification, dual payment authorisation, real-time transaction monitoring, beneficiary validation and periodic forensic audits. Any unusual routing of public funds through private firms or newly opened accounts should trigger immediate investigation.