A special PMLA court in Mumbai has found prima facie evidence of money laundering in an alleged ₹4,957.31 crore bank fraud involving Pratibha Industries Ltd and 33 others, and has taken cognisance of the case against all 34 accused.
The court summoned the accused to appear on October 21, observing that the material before it showed a “consistent and systematic course of conduct” involving the alleged siphoning of money from a consortium of 17 banks led by Bank of Baroda.
What Is the ₹4,957 Crore Bank Fraud Case?
The case concerns loans obtained by Pratibha Industries Ltd from a consortium of 17 banks. The company allegedly siphoned the borrowed funds to related parties and eventually used them to acquire properties.
The total alleged transactions linked to the consortium were stated to be ₹4,957.31 crore.
The court found prima facie material indicating that the diverted funds were used to acquire movable and immovable properties.
How Did the Case Begin?
The case stems from a CBI FIR registered in January 2023 following a complaint by Bank of Baroda.
The CBI had alleged that Pratibha Industries and its directors diverted funds to related parties and subsidiaries, used fictitious sale and purchase transactions to inflate turnover and diverted money linked to work-in-progress to secure credit facilities.
The company’s account had been classified as a non-performing asset on December 31, 2017, before the consortium banks subsequently declared it fraudulent.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
How Was the Money Allegedly Laundered?
The Enforcement Directorate, which later investigated the money-laundering allegations, claimed that the promoters used accommodation-entry providers and bogus entities to layer the diverted funds.
Suspicious third-party transactions were allegedly used to channel money towards companies that purchased immovable properties.
The court found material indicating that funds used to acquire movable and immovable properties had been diverted from banks.
What Did the ED Find During Its Investigation?
In January 2025, the ED searched 14 locations across Mumbai and Delhi and froze ₹5.4 crore in bank balances and mutual funds.
Two months later, in February, the agency attached fixed assets worth ₹24.5 crore belonging to Pratibha Industries director Ajit Kulkarni and associates.
The court was also told that Pratibha Industries had initially obtained a bank limit of ₹1,331.15 crore from the consortium.
How Were the Funds Allegedly Diverted?
According to the court order, the company faced liquidity problems and allegedly turned to fraud to stay afloat.
It allegedly raised letters of credit and bank guarantees to shell companies backed by fake purchase orders and invoices. The transactions were allegedly carried out without any actual movement of goods.
The alleged transactions resulted in the consortium being defrauded of ₹4,957.31 crore.
What Did the Court Say About the Evidence?
The court rejected pleas by Sunil Jagdishkiran Anandpara and Dhwaja Commodity Services Pvt Ltd seeking to be dropped from the case.
It found prima facie material indicating that Dhwaja had received ₹5.10 crore from Pratibha Industries through allegedly manipulated invoices shown as rental commission. Anandpara was at the helm of the company’s daily affairs, the court noted.
The court said the material indicated that sale and purchase documents had allegedly been manipulated despite there being no movement of goods, and that diverted funds were used to acquire movable and immovable properties.
It concluded that there was prima facie material showing the generation, concealment, possession, acquisition and use of proceeds of crime, providing sufficient ground to proceed against all 34 accused for money laundering.
The420 View
The court’s observations put the alleged movement of bank funds at the centre of the case. Investigators have alleged the use of related entities, shell companies, bogus transactions and manipulated invoices, while the court has found sufficient prima facie material to proceed against all 34 accused under the money-laundering law.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
