The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested an Indian Revenue Service officer, a Delhi-based advocate and another person in an alleged ₹1 crore bribery case linked to an investigation into Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited.
The arrested IRS officer, Harish Kumar Tanwar, is a 2017-batch officer currently serving as Deputy Director with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office in Chennai.
Police also arrested advocate Bharat Sharma and Sharma’s relative Aryan Sharma after an alleged ₹20 lakh payment was made as part of the larger bribe demand.
The allegations remain under investigation and have not been proved in court.
FCRF Launches CP-FRM to Build India’s Next Generation of Fraud Risk Professionals
CBI Says ₹1 Crore Was Demanded for Favour in Probe
The case centres on an SFIO investigation involving a person connected to an alleged cheating case linked to DHFL.
Tanwar was the investigating officer handling the matter.
According to the CBI, the accused allegedly conspired to demand ₹1 crore from the complainant in exchange for favourable treatment during the investigation.
Investigators allege that Bharat Sharma acted as an intermediary.
The CBI moved after verifying the alleged demand and registering a case.
A trap was then laid, during which Sharma allegedly received ₹20 lakh from the complainant as part payment of the ₹1 crore demand.
The agency says the payment was accepted on behalf of Tanwar.
Tanwar, Bharat Sharma and Aryan Sharma were subsequently arrested.
Searches were also conducted at premises linked to the SFIO officer and the advocate.
The CBI said suspicious material connected to the case was recovered during those searches.
Investigators are now examining whether more people were involved in the alleged arrangement.
SFIO Officer Was Handling DHFL-Linked Investigation
The Serious Fraud Investigation Office functions under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and investigates complex corporate fraud cases.
Unlike a routine police investigation, an SFIO probe can involve examination of company accounts, financial records, directors, related entities and complex movement of funds.
That makes its investigators particularly important in large corporate fraud cases.
The bribery allegation is therefore serious because it concerns an officer who was directly handling an investigation.
The CBI will need to establish whether any official action, report or investigative decision was actually influenced by the alleged demand.
It will also examine the communication between the accused and the complainant, the movement of the ₹20 lakh and whether further payments were expected.
The complaint relates to a case connected to DHFL, which has featured in several major financial investigations over the past few years.
DHFL came under scrutiny from the CBI and Enforcement Directorate after allegations involving financial irregularities and transactions connected to Yes Bank.
Investigators had earlier alleged that Yes Bank invested thousands of crores in financial instruments issued by DHFL, while entities connected to former Yes Bank chief Rana Kapoor allegedly received financial benefits.
Those cases are separate from the current bribery investigation.
The latest CBI action concerns alleged corruption by people connected to an SFIO probe rather than the underlying DHFL allegations themselves.
₹20 Lakh Trap Payment Becomes Key Evidence
Trap operations are commonly used by the CBI in corruption investigations where an official or intermediary is accused of demanding illegal gratification.
Investigators first attempt to verify whether the demand actually occurred.
If sufficient material is available, the agency may arrange for the complainant to make a controlled payment while officers monitor the transaction.
The money allegedly accepted during such an operation can then become an important part of the evidence.
However, recovery of money alone does not automatically establish the entire prosecution case.
Courts also examine whether a bribe was actually demanded, whether the accused knowingly accepted the payment and whether there is supporting evidence linking the transaction to an official favour.
In this case, the CBI is expected to rely on the alleged demand, the ₹20 lakh payment, communications between the parties and material recovered during searches.
The agency will also examine whether the advocate and his relative were acting independently or as intermediaries for the public servant.
Case Adds to Scrutiny of Financial-Crime Investigations
The arrests bring a different kind of risk into focus.
Agencies such as the SFIO, CBI and Enforcement Directorate investigate some of India’s largest corporate and economic offences.
Those investigations can involve companies, promoters and transactions worth hundreds or thousands of crores.
Any allegation that an investigating officer demanded money in exchange for favourable treatment therefore raises questions about the integrity of the enforcement process itself.
The CBI investigation will now determine whether the ₹1 crore demand was genuine, how the accused allegedly coordinated and whether any official decision in the DHFL-linked probe was compromised.
What this means for you:
Anyone facing a demand for money in exchange for favourable treatment from a public official should preserve messages, call records and payment details and report the matter to the appropriate anti-corruption agency.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
