When the Enforcement Directorate first examined the case of L. Srinivas Goud, the proprietor of Mallika Inn Bar and Restaurant, investigators believed they were dealing with another instance of falsified loan documentation. What they uncovered instead was a carefully orchestrated scheme involving impersonation, forged property papers, and the diversion of housing-loan funds into unapproved channels.
According to case files presented before the Nampally court in Hyderabad, Goud secured a loan from Federal Bank using fabricated title deeds and falsified signatures. An impersonator—posed as his mother—was brought before bank officials to complete the verification process. The loan, sanctioned ostensibly for home renovation and business development, was quietly redirected for unrelated uses. Federal Bank eventually reported a loss of ₹44.80 lakh, prompting deeper scrutiny under money-laundering laws.
Algoritha Prepares You for Seamless DPDP Compliance — Contact Us for Complete Implementation Support
Building a Money-Laundering Case Under PMLA
Following the detection of the fraudulent loan, the ED’s Hyderabad Zonal Office opened a money-laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. Prosecutors argued that the illegally obtained loan constituted “proceeds of crime” and that Goud had engaged in deliberate laundering by concealing its misuse.
The department’s prosecution complaint drew on documentary evidence and testimony from multiple bank officials. Over months of hearings, the courtroom saw a steady procession of witnesses who corroborated how the loan was sanctioned, how documents were manipulated, and how the funds were subsequently diverted. The legal foundation for the case—rooted in both the misrepresentation to the bank and the concealment of illicit proceeds—became increasingly robust.
Yet the case remained stalled for long stretches for one reason: Goud simply stopped showing up.
A Defendant Disappears — and Investigators Begin a Hunt
Court records reveal a pattern of absences, adjournments, and unexplained no-shows. At one stage, Goud’s repeated failure to appear prompted the court to issue non-bailable warrants. Investigators attempting to serve the warrants discovered that he had moved out of his registered residence with no forwarding information.
The ED then turned to electronic and human intelligence, quietly mapping his digital footprint and cross-referencing new address details with judicial records. Surveillance teams staked out the suspected residence for nearly a week. In the early hours of October 27, officials detained Goud and produced him before the court later that morning.
He remained in judicial custody thereafter, as successive bail applications were rejected on the grounds of past evasion and the risk of absconding again.
The Court’s Verdict and a Case With Wider Implications
On November 24, 2025, the Nampally court pronounced its verdict, convicting Goud of laundering proceeds of crime. He was sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹25,000, with a matching fine imposed on his firm, Mallika Inn Bar and Restaurant. The order marked one of the year’s notable convictions under PMLA for loan-related fraud, particularly in cases involving impersonation and document fabrication.
Goud continues to remain in custody following the judgment, bringing closure to a case that began as a routine banking anomaly and evolved into a full-scale investigation across multiple agencies. For financial regulators and enforcement bodies, the conviction serves as a reminder of the increasingly sophisticated methods used in credit fraud—and the length investigators must sometimes go to ensure accountability.
