Former Punjab National Bank (PNB) clerk Manoj Hanumant Kharat has filed a plea in a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Mumbai, seeking to be cleared of charges in the ₹13,700-crore fraud case linked to fugitive diamantaire Nirav Modi. The court is scheduled to hear the application on April 13.
No Proof of Intent, Says Petition
In his petition, Kharat contended that the evidence against him, even if accepted as true, does not demonstrate that he participated in any criminal conspiracy, cheating, or corruption. He emphasized that his role was limited to that of a Single Window Operator, which involved typing SWIFT messages—secure instructions used by banks to execute financial transactions.
The petition states that these messages were prepared under the directions of his senior and then-deputy manager Gokulnath Shetty, who was responsible for verifying, approving, and entering these transactions into the bank’s core system. Kharat asserted that he had no authority to approve loans or issue guarantees and was unaware that the LoUs (Letters of Undertaking) were allegedly issued without proper approvals, deposits, or system entries.
FCRF Launches Premier CISO Certification Amid Rising Demand for Cybersecurity Leadership
No Personal Gain from Alleged Fraud
Kharat also claimed he did not benefit from the alleged fraud. While there may have been lapses in carrying out duties, he argued that holding him criminally liable without proof of intent would be improper.
Background of the PNB LoU Scam and Systemic Issues
The case stems from a complaint filed by PNB in January 2018, alleging that certain bank officials colluded with firms linked to Nirav Modi and his uncle Mehul Choksi to issue LoUs without following due procedure. These LoUs were transmitted via the SWIFT system but were not recorded in the bank’s internal systems, enabling overseas branches to grant loans that eventually defaulted, causing significant losses to PNB.
Investigators noted that the fraud was not restricted to a few transactions but spanned several years. Between 2011 and 2017, more than 1,200 LoUs were allegedly issued without required safeguards, revealing systemic lapses in the bank’s processes.
Kharat’s plea follows last year’s order in which a special CBI court discharged a former PNB executive director—the first such relief in the case. The court had observed that administrative negligence alone cannot be treated as a criminal offence without proof of intent or active involvement.
In his petition, Kharat argued that the court, at this stage, should determine whether there is strong suspicion of wrongdoing rather than assume guilt based solely on his position at the bank. He warned that holding clerical staff criminally accountable without evidence of intent would blur the line between negligence and crime.
Experts suggest that the case highlights systemic failures in banking oversight and the potential misuse of criminal charges against junior employees without establishing responsibility of senior officials.
