The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a supplementary prosecution complaint against five accused in connection with the alleged laundering of ₹14.95 crore belonging to the Dr BR Ambedkar Development Corporation Limited (ADCL).
The complaint, which includes accused Ayub Sayyed, was filed by the ED’s Bengaluru Zonal Office before the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on October 5, 2026.
How Did the ₹14.95 Crore Bank Fraud Begin?
The investigation originated from an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation’s Anti-Corruption Branch (CBI-ACB) in Bengaluru.
The FIR invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These alleged offences formed the basis for the ED’s subsequent money laundering investigation under the PMLA, 2002.
According to the ED, the accused allegedly opened a fraudulent current account in the name of ADCL at the State Bank of Mysore’s HAL II Stage branch in Bengaluru.
Investigators found that forged documents and impersonation were allegedly used to open the account, creating the means to carry out unauthorised financial transactions involving the corporation’s funds.
How Were the Corporation’s Fixed Deposits Encashed?
The ED’s investigation revealed that four fixed deposits belonging to ADCL, each valued at ₹5 crore, were allegedly closed prematurely.
The accused reportedly used forged term deposit receipts (TDRs), fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) and fabricated pre-closure letters to facilitate the transactions.
The premature closure of the deposits allegedly resulted in the diversion of approximately ₹14.95 crore. The ED identified the diverted amount as proceeds of crime under the PMLA.
How Was the Money Allegedly Laundered?
According to the agency, the diverted funds were moved through multiple bank accounts belonging to individuals and entities.
The ED alleged that the money was transferred between accounts and subsequently withdrawn in cash to conceal its origin.
This movement of funds formed part of the alleged money laundering process examined by investigators.
Statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA further indicated that the funds were knowingly received, transferred and withdrawn as part of the alleged laundering operation.
The agency has relied on these financial transactions and recorded statements in examining the involvement of the accused.
What Action Had the ED Taken Earlier?
The latest supplementary complaint follows an earlier prosecution complaint filed by the ED before the Special Court in Bengaluru on March 25, 2026.
That complaint named 15 accused persons and entities allegedly involved in the money laundering offence.
As part of its earlier action, the agency also sought the confiscation of assets worth approximately ₹6.02 crore belonging to the accused.
The subsequent filing against five accused represents another stage in the proceedings arising from the alleged diversion of ADCL funds.
What Properties Has the ED Attached?
The ED also issued a second provisional attachment order on July 22, 2026.
Under that order, the agency attached an immovable property valued at ₹24 lakh belonging to one of the accused.
The attachment followed the earlier proceedings in which the agency had sought confiscation of assets worth approximately ₹6.02 crore.
These actions form part of the ED’s efforts to identify and proceed against assets connected to the alleged money laundering offence.
What Does the Latest Chargesheet Mean?
The supplementary prosecution complaint places additional allegations against five accused before the Special Court under the PMLA.
The case centres on the alleged fraudulent opening of a bank account, premature closure of corporate fixed deposits using forged documents and subsequent movement of the diverted funds through multiple accounts.
The allegations and the individual roles of the accused remain subject to judicial examination.
The Bengaluru case highlights how alleged misuse of banking procedures and forged financial documents can expose institutional funds to substantial losses. The ED’s findings concerning premature fixed deposit closures, transfers through multiple accounts and cash withdrawals underline the importance of verifying account ownership, deposit closure instructions and the movement of large financial transactions.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
