In a significant development in the ongoing money laundering investigation linked to Reliance Home Finance Ltd. (RHFL) and Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. (RCFL), a Delhi court has granted custodial remand of former Reliance Capital executive Amitabh Jhunjhunwala and co-accused Amit Bapna to the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The order was passed on April 16, 2026, by the Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi.
The court was hearing applications filed by the ED under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), seeking custodial interrogation of the accused in connection with alleged diversion of massive public funds through a web of shell companies. The investigation stems from FIRs registered by the CBI and Economic Offences Wing (EOW), including multiple complaints relating to financial fraud and corporate loan misuse.
BUY NOW : 50+ PMLA JUDGEMENTS : CASE LAWS
According to the ED, the probe has uncovered a premeditated and well-orchestrated scheme to siphon off funds from RHFL and RCFL under the guise of corporate loans. These loans were allegedly routed through shell and paper companies controlled by entities linked to the Reliance Anil Ambani Group. The agency claimed that nearly 90% of the corporate loans were disbursed to such entities in blatant violation of lending norms and without proper due diligence.
The court noted that RHFL had raised funds exceeding ₹35,368 crore during 2015–2020 and had outstanding liabilities of over ₹12,728 crore by FY 2018–19. It was further revealed that lenders were able to recover only ₹211.62 crore, leaving a balance of ₹407.18 crore classified as proceeds of crime. Similarly, in the case of RCFL, defaults of ₹8,228.47 crore were reported, out of which only ₹1,947.99 crore could be recovered, leaving ₹6,280.48 crore as alleged proceeds of crime.
The ED alleged that Amitabh Jhunjhunwala, who served as Vice Chairman and held key managerial roles in Reliance Capital Group companies, exercised significant control over financial decisions, including loan disbursements and fund flows. Digital evidence, including emails, reportedly shows his involvement in approving transactions and directing the movement of funds to shell entities. Statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA and internal communications further indicate his role in sanctioning loans and influencing credit decisions.
The agency also alleged that Amit Bapna played a key role in executing these transactions and acted under instructions from top management. Emails exchanged between the accused reportedly reflect coordination in routing funds and managing shell entities.
Opposing the remand, the defence argued that the accused had cooperated with the investigation and that no direct evidence linked them to personal gain from the alleged proceeds of crime. It was also contended that Jhunjhunwala had resigned in 2019 and was not involved in day-to-day operations thereafter. The defence further claimed that the ED failed to demonstrate the necessity for custodial interrogation and that procedural safeguards under Section 19 of PMLA were not adequately followed.
However, the court, after examining the material on record, held that the ED had established sufficient grounds to justify arrest and custodial interrogation. It observed that the investigation is at a nascent stage and involves complex financial transactions requiring detailed examination. The court emphasized that custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the flow of funds, identify beneficiaries, and uncover the larger conspiracy.
Relying on precedents including V. Senthil Balaji v. State and Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court reiterated that once statutory conditions under PMLA are met, custodial interrogation can be granted to facilitate effective investigation.
The court granted five days’ custodial remand to the ED and directed that the accused be produced before the court on April 20, 2026. The court also allowed audio-visual recording of interrogation proceedings and ensured access to legal counsel during limited intervals, while imposing standard safeguards including medical examination every 24 hours.
Case Details
Case Title: Enforcement Directorate Vs. Amitabh Jhunjhunwala & Amit Bapna
Case No.: ECIR/STF No. 17./2025
Date: 16.04.2026
Read More: ED Cites “Reason to Believe” To Arrest Amitabh Jhunjhunwala Under PMLA
