The ED filed prosecution complaints against Anil Ambani Group firms RInfra and RCom and ex-executives in two PMLA cases, pegging proceeds of crime in the RCom case at ₹40,185 crore.
New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed prosecution complaints in two separate money-laundering cases involving the Anil Ambani Group companies Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (RInfra) and Reliance Communications Ltd (RCom), along with former executives of the group, quantifying the proceeds of crime in the larger of the two cases at ₹40,185 crore [Directorate of Enforcement v. Reliance Communications Ltd and Others].
The complaints were filed on August 8 before special courts constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in Delhi — the first before the special PMLA court at Dwarka in the RInfra matter, and the second, a supplementary complaint, before the special PMLA court at Rouse Avenue in the RCom matter. The allegations set out below are those made by the ED in its complaints, and remain to be tested; no accused has been convicted.
The RInfra case: an alleged ₹187 crore diversion from toll-road projects
According to the ED, the RInfra case originated from an FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing of the Mumbai Police in February. The agency has alleged that shell entities were incorporated and operated using forged documents and bank accounts, and used to route funds and outward remittances through fictitious invoices relating to over-valued diamond exports.
The investigation, the agency says, uncovered an alleged scheme to divert funds from four toll-road projects awarded by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) — Trichy-Karur, Trichy-Dindigul, Salem-Ulundurpet and Jaipur-Reengus — which had been financed through NHAI grants as well as bank and institutional loans.
The ED has alleged that around ₹187 crore was siphoned off during September and October 2010 through sham, post-facto or back-dated arrangements for fictitious sub-contracting work. On the agency’s case, the funds moved from RInfra, from project-specific special purpose vehicles, or from engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractors, down to construction contractors and then to shell entities having no connection with road construction, with documents allegedly created to present the transfers as genuine project expenditure while the money was layered through shell entities and diamond traders.
The ED has said it has attached immovable properties and equity shares of Reliance Power held by RInfra, along with land held in the name of Ksheeraabd Constructions, of a combined value of around ₹187 crore. The complaint names RInfra, former group executive Sateesh Seth and others, and the agency has said its investigation into the role of other individuals is continuing. Seth, who left the Reliance Group in 2025, was arrested by the ED and is in judicial custody.
The RCom case: ₹40,185 crore in alleged proceeds of crime
The second complaint is a supplementary chargesheet in the money-laundering case involving RCom, Reliance Telecom Ltd (RTL) and Reliance Infratel Ltd. The ED has said the case arises from multiple FIRs registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) concerning the alleged diversion of fund-based and non-fund-based credit facilities.
The agency has alleged that fresh credit facilities were repeatedly used to repay, rotate and “evergreen” earlier domestic and foreign liabilities, instead of being applied to the purposes for which they had been sanctioned. On the ED’s case, the funds were layered through group companies, specially created conduit entities, multiple bank accounts and liquid mutual funds, and were used to service earlier External Commercial Borrowings and Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds while being shown as legitimate business expenditure or receipts.
The ED has further alleged that loan proceeds were diverted to group companies, including Reliance Infrastructure and Reliance Capital, and were subsequently used to purchase personal assets for promoters outside India, and that certain transactions were used to artificially inflate RCom’s profits. The agency has quantified the proceeds of crime in this case at ₹40,185 crore, and said it has attached assets worth ₹8,078 crore, of which it is seeking confiscation.
RCom, RTL and former Reliance Anil Ambani Group executives — including Sateesh Seth, Gautam Doshi and Amitabh Jhunjhunwala — have been named as accused. Doshi and Seth were arrested by the ED in June and July respectively and are in judicial custody; Doshi left the group in 2020. The supplementary complaint follows the main prosecution complaint in the RCom case, which the ED filed in March.
Background: what a PMLA prosecution complaint is
A “prosecution complaint” is the PMLA equivalent of a charge sheet — the document by which the ED, on completing its investigation, places its findings before a designated special court and seeks that the court take cognisance of the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act. A supplementary complaint, such as the one filed in the RCom matter, is filed to add further accused or material after the main complaint.
The scheme of the PMLA is distinctive in two respects that bear on cases of this kind. First, the offence of money laundering is treated as standing on the “proceeds of crime” generated from a separate “scheduled offence” — here, the frauds alleged in the underlying CBI and Mumbai Police FIRs — so the ED’s case is parasitic on, but legally distinct from, those predicate cases. Second, the Act empowers the agency to provisionally attach property believed to represent the proceeds of crime even before trial, subject to confirmation by an adjudicating authority, which is the power the ED has invoked in attaching the RInfra properties and the ₹8,078 crore in the RCom matter. The attachment and the naming of an accused are investigative and prosecutorial steps; guilt is a question for the special court to determine at trial.
It bears emphasis that the figures and the sequence of events set out in the complaints are the ED’s allegations. The accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the complaints are yet to be taken up on their merits, and nothing has been established against any of the companies or individuals named.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
![[Advocates Protection Bill] Delhi HC to AAP Govt: Fast-Track Advocates Protection Bill for Lawyer Safety](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-8-8.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
![[Sambhal Killing] "Poison of Communalism is Being Propagated in the Name of Surveys Which Undermines National Unity": Jamiat President Madani Writes to CJI Khanna](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/image-1-3.png?resize=420%2C345&ssl=1)
