Opposing a prayer for setting up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe allegations of corporate and bank frauds against the Reliance Anil Ambani Group, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has told the Supreme Court that it “is conducting a swift, detailed and impartial investigation” in the matter.
In an affidavit filed on Monday before the Supreme Court, which is seized of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in this regard, the ED said, it “is opposed to the Petitioner’s plea for constitution of a Special Investigation Team as each law enforcement agency investigating the affairs of the Reliance Anil Ambani Group is different and operates within its own statutory domain.”
The agency said that it had filed in a sealed cover, a status report on the investigation being conducted by it and that the report “demonstrates that” ED “is conducting a swift, detailed, and impartial investigation into the Reliance Anil Ambani Group. It is operating professionally within the scope of the statutory mandate bestowed upon it.” The affidavit added that “ED possesses specialised forensic, financial, and technical expertise, and is statutorily empowered to conduct complex investigations.”
It added, “As can be seen from the Status Report…the…Directorate is coordinating with other law enforcement agencies. As a statutory duty…ED has shared information with other agencies under section 66(2) of PMLA. ED has also requested other agencies to provide certain information in the interest of coordinated investigation. Some information has been received, and ED is following up with other agencies for expediting the pending information.”
3 distinct ECIRs recorded
The agency said that it had recorded “three distinct Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs)” to conduct investigation for the offence of money laundering, against the group. It added that three distinct case files have also been opened by the ED, “for investigation violations/contraventions under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA)” by the group.
The PIL was filed by former bureaucrat E A S Sharma. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi had sought a status report from the ED in the matter on January 23.
Giving details of the ECIR, the probe agency said that the first one involving RPower was recorded on June 16, 2025, based on a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police.
Story continues below this ad
The second ECIR was recorded on July 22, 2025, on the basis of two FIRs registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) “on complaints by the Chief Vigilance Officer of Yes Bank” which “relate to investments made by Yes Bank between 2017 and 2019 in Non-Convertible Debentures and Commercial Papers of RCFL (Reliance Commercial Finance Limited) and RHFL (Reliance Home Finance Limited)…both of which became non-performing assets (NPA)”.
It said that an addendum to the ECIR was issued on December 10, 2025, to include a third CBI FIR, registered on the complaint of Union Bank of India, and concerns credit facilities extended to RHFL by erstwhile Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India), which later became an NPA with outstanding dues of 7228.06 crore.
“During search operations, a large volume of incriminating evidence was seized/freezed, including digital and electronic devices, email dumps, Indian and foreign currency, mutual funds, fixed deposits, and documents comprising more than 500 loan files,” it pointed out, adding that the adjudicating authority had confirmed the retention of evidence and property.
‘RHFL’s default of Rs 7,500 crore’
The ED said that “PMLA investigation till date has found that RHFL had borrowed public funds from several banks and financial institution and it had committed a default of Rs 7523.46 Crores against 33 lenders banks/financial institution. Subsequent to resolution of RHFL under Reserve Bank of India (Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets) Directions, 2019, these 33 lenders could recover only Rs 2116.28 Crores. Accordingly, the net defaults to the tune of Rs 5407.18 Crores constitutes the proceeds of crime under PMLA in case of RHFL which represents the loss of public funds/exchequer.”
Story continues below this ad
It added that “Investigation has further revealed that RCFL had borrowed public funds from several banks and financial institution and it had committed a default of Rs 78226.05 crores against 21 lenders banks/financial institution. Subsequent to resolution of RFL under Reserve Bank of India (Prudential Framework for Resolution of Stressed Assets) Directions, 2019, these 21 lenders could recover only Rs 1945.48 Crores. Accordingly, the net defaults to the tune of 76280.57 crores constitutes the proceeds of crime under PMLA in case of RFL which represents the loss o f public funds/exchequer.”
The third ECIR was recorded on August 26, 2025, on the basis of CBI FIR against Reliance Communications Limited (RCOM), Anil Ambani, unknown public servants and unknown others. As per the FIR registered based on a complaint by Jyoti Kumar, Deputy General Manager, SBI, RCOM and its two group companies, M/s Reliance Telecom Limited (RTL) and M/s Reliance Infratel Limited (RITL), had taken loans from 13 foreign banks and institutional investors, as well as loans from 26 Indian banks and financial institutions. The total amount of loans outstanding from these banks and institutions is Rs 740,185.55 crore, which also constitutes the quantum of proceeds of crime for the purposes of investigation under PMLA in this case, the agency said.
On the FEMA case, it said, “ED initiated investigation in this case on May 9, 2023. The primary issue pertains to siphoning off of funds from India to the United Arab Emirates by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Limited (RIL) from National Highways Authority of India contracts awarded to its subsidiary Special Purpose Vehicles.” It added that “searches were conducted under section 37 of FEMA, read with section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on September 30, 2025 at 5 premises. During search operations, large volume of incriminating evidence i n the form of digital / electronic devices and documents were seized.”