Police have arrested Prashant Dwivedi in an alleged ₹7 crore bank loan fraud in which money borrowed for an import-export business was reportedly diverted to accounts linked to the accused and their relatives through fabricated invoices.
Kalyanpur Police arrested Dwivedi after he had allegedly been absconding in the case. Police say a substantial part of the disputed funds had reached accounts linked to him.
The FIR was registered on May 19 following a complaint by Ajay Singh Chauhan of Awas Vikas-1. Rajiv Tripathi, Ravi Tripathi, Vandana Tripathi and Prashant Dwivedi were named in the case.
Investigators are now examining bank transactions, company records and invoices to establish how the loan was used and whether other entities helped move the money.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
Business Partnership Allegedly Led to ₹7 Crore Loan
According to Chauhan’s complaint, Rajiv Tripathi and Ravi Tripathi approached him in 2023 with a proposal to enter the import-export business through Raj Vandnam International LLP.
Following the arrangement, Vandana Tripathi and another partner were allegedly brought into the firm.
Police say the accused later obtained a loan of around ₹7 crore from the State Bank of India’s Birhana Road branch to expand the business.
As security, property belonging to Chauhan’s company, Affinity First Developers Private Limited, was mortgaged to the bank.
One report values the mortgaged plot at around ₹4.5 crore.
The fraud allegation centres on what allegedly happened after the bank released the money.
Instead of using the loan for the stated business activity, the accused allegedly prepared false or fabricated proforma invoices and transferred the money to companies linked to themselves and relatives.
A significant portion allegedly reached accounts associated with Dwivedi.
What Is Loan Diversion Through Fake Invoices?
A business loan is generally sanctioned for a stated commercial purpose.
If a company borrows money to purchase goods for an import-export business, the bank expects the funds to be used for those purchases or other permitted business expenses.
An invoice is supposed to document a genuine commercial transaction.
A proforma invoice is usually an advance document describing goods, prices and proposed terms before a final sale takes place.
The document itself is completely legitimate.
The problem begins when an invoice is fabricated to create the appearance of a transaction that never happened.
For example, a company could show that it purchased machinery worth ₹1 crore from another business. If no machinery was actually supplied and the receiving company is controlled by a relative, the invoice can become a way of disguising the movement of loan money.
This is commonly described as diversion or siphoning of loan funds.
Not every payment between related companies is fraudulent. Investigators have to establish whether the underlying transactions were genuine and whether the money was used according to the loan agreement.
That is precisely what police are now examining in the Kanpur case.
Three Named Accused Reportedly Remain Out of Reach
Police reports indicate that Rajiv Tripathi, Ravi Tripathi and Vandana Tripathi have not yet been arrested.
Live Hindustan reported that three accused, including a husband-wife pair, had allegedly gone to Dubai and that legal proceedings were underway against them.
This is another reason why describing Dwivedi alone as the “main accused” would be premature.
Police allege that Rajiv, Ravi and Vandana were central to obtaining the SBI loan, while Dwivedi’s alleged role relates partly to receiving diverted funds.
Investigators will need to reconstruct the complete transaction chain before individual responsibility becomes clear.
The complainant has also alleged that when he demanded repayment, he was abused and threatened with death.
Those allegations are being examined alongside the financial evidence.
Kanpur Has Seen Another Recent SBI Loan Document Case
The case also comes shortly after another alleged bank-loan fraud surfaced in Kanpur.
In August, police registered a case involving an alleged attempt to obtain a ₹1.45 crore SBI loan using forged property documents.
The complainant in that case alleged that tenants and associates falsely presented his land as their own while seeking financing from an SBI branch.
The two investigations are not known to be connected.
But both show why property ownership documents, borrower identity and the actual destination of loan proceeds are critical parts of bank fraud investigations.
In larger cases, enforcement agencies frequently examine whether funds were moved through related companies, shell entities or fabricated business transactions.
A separate ED investigation this year into an alleged ₹450 crore bank fraud accused another company of routing loan proceeds through shell firms and related entities using fake invoices and circular transactions.
In Kanpur, police are now following the same basic question on a smaller scale: where did the ₹7 crore actually go?
The answer will depend on bank statements, invoices, company ownership records and whether the claimed import-export transactions can be independently verified.
Dwivedi has been arrested, but the allegations against him and the other named accused remain subject to investigation and proof before a court.
What this means for you: If your property is being offered as collateral for someone else’s business loan, independently obtain the loan documents and understand exactly what liability you are accepting. Business partners should also monitor where borrowed funds are transferred after disbursal, particularly when payments go to related companies.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/policetechnology/
