Mumbai: In fresh trouble for industrialist Anil Ambani, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has registered a money laundering case against him, Reliance Communications (RCom) and others over an alleged ₹2,929-crore bank fraud involving the State Bank of India (SBI).

Officials said the ED’s action follows a First Information Report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) last month. The CBI had named Ambani, RCom and others, including some government officials, accusing them of causing losses to SBI. It had also searched Ambani’s residence as well as RCom offices during its probe.

The SBI had classified RCom and Mr Ambani as “fraud” on June 13 and sent a report to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on June 24.

Reacting to the development, a spokesperson for Ambani said the complaint pertained to matters dating back more than a decade, when Ambani was a non-executive director and not involved in the company’s daily management. “SBI has already withdrawn proceedings against five other non-executive directors. Despite this, Mr Ambani has been selectively singled out,” the statement said.

The spokesperson added that Reliance Communications has, for the past six years, been under the supervision of a committee of creditors led by SBI and overseen by a resolution professional. “The matter remains sub judice before the NCLT and other judicial forums, including the Supreme Court. Mr Ambani has duly challenged SBI’s declaration before the competent judicial forum. He strongly denies all allegations and charges, and will duly defend himself,” the statement said.

With this latest ECIR, the ED’s ongoing investigations into Ambani and his group firms now cover four cases. Apart from the SBI matter, the agency is probing an alleged Rs 3,000-crore loan diversion linked to Yes Bank, involving suspected fund diversions by Reliance Group firms between 2017 and 2019. The probe has included raids at over 35 premises, searches at 50 companies, and questioning of at least 25 individuals.

The agency is also examining suspected loan diversions of more than Rs 17,000 crore by Reliance Infrastructure and other group entities, allegedly routed through inter-corporate deposits. Additionally, charges of fake bank guarantees worth Rs 68.2 crore tied to Reliance Power and Biswal Tradelink Pvt Ltd (BTPL) are part of the broader Rs 17,000-crore loan fraud inquiry.

Agency said that the SBI case involves misrepresentation to secure credit facilities, diversion of loan funds, inter-company transactions, misuse of invoice financing, discounting of bills, and creation of fictitious debtors. The accused face charges of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust.

The ED action was triggered by a complaint received on August 18, 2025, from Jyoti Kumar, Deputy General Manager of SBI’s Mumbai branch, referencing a forensic audit report dated October 15, 2020, that identified irregularities in loan utilisation. Investigations are ongoing to determine whether diverted funds were laundered through shell companies or offshore channels.

In the SBI case, it is alleged that the accused, in criminal conspiracy, secured credit facilities from SBI for RCom, misused loan funds, engaged in inter-company transactions, misused sales invoice financing, discounted bills of RCom via Reliance Infratel Ltd., routed funds through inter-corporate deposits, and created/write-off fictitious debtors.

Mumbai: In a major breakthrough, the Mumbai Crime Branch has arrested two brothers from Telangana’s Asifabad district for allegedly stealing a INSAS rifle and ammunition from Navy Nagar, a highly sensitive defence area in the city.

The accused have been identified as Rakesh Dubla and Umesh Dubla, both hailing from the same village. Notably, one of the accused is an Agniveer (a soldier serving under the Agnipath scheme). Police have seized the stolen INSAS rifle and cartridges from their possession.

Both accused were hiding in the Naxalite area. Yesterday, around 9 pm, the Mumbai Crime Branch entered the Naxalite jungle as per Telangana SP’s guidelines to nab the duo.

According to investigators, on the night of September 6, one of the accused, dressed in a Navy uniform, gained entry into Navy Nagar. He approached a naval personnel on duty, claiming he had come to relieve him from his shift. Trusting him, the on-duty employee handed over his service INSAS rifle and ammunition. The accused then discarded them outside the compound, where his brother was waiting to collect the weapons.

After securing the INSAS rifle and cartridges, both fled to Telangana. Following a swift investigation and technical surveillance, the Crime Branch traced and apprehended them. The duo are now being brought to Mumbai on transit remand for further interrogation. Police are investigating how the accused managed to obtain the Navy uniform and whether there was any larger conspiracy behind the theft.

Of the five accused named in the alleged abetment to suicide case of activist-advocate Sarita Khanchandani, two have approached the Additional Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. The pleas, however, have been strongly opposed by the deceased’s husband, Advocate Purshottam Khanchandani, who claimed that the accused have criminal antecedents and pose a high risk of tampering with evidence.

Accused Dhananjay Bodare, Shiv Sena (UBT) Kalyan district president, in his bail plea questioned the credibility of the suicide note recovered by Sarita’s family. Bodare described the note as “vague and omnibus,” alleging that it mentions several individuals collectively without assigning specific roles to any of them.

FPJ has accessed the detailed anticipatory bail application, which have challenged the suicide note alleging it to be‘so-called suicide note to be a vague and omnibus in nature’, which states:” Names of several individuals have been mentioned together in the notice without any details or attribution of acts. “

The ABA copy further reads, “The deceased, her husband, and daughter are all advocates by profession and well-versed with law. If there was any abetment, they would have produced the suicide note immediately. Instead, its discovery days later—after police initially refused to register abetment charges—raises serious doubts about its authenticity. The note appears to be an afterthought, fabricated to falsely implicate the applicant,” the plea argues.

The application further points out that initially, after the incident on August 28, no abetment offence was registered despite public allegations on social media by the family. The alleged suicide note was claimed to have been found on September 1, following a purported recovery of the deceased’s “lost mobile” and CCTV footage showing her writing in a diary.

Opposing the pleas, Advocate Purshottam Khanchandani, advocate Sarita’s husband,  alleged that Bodare and others, have allegedly  systematically harassed Sarita over a property dispute. He claimed that Bodare had allegedly illegally encroached on government land, built an unauthorized Shiv Sena Shakha, and attempted to capture part of Sarita’s property.

The objection states, “The accused deliberately created an atmosphere of fear and pressure, instigating Sarita to take the extreme step. They used political clout and even filed false cases under the Atrocities Act to force her to withdraw an FIR. They also defamed her through derogatory social media posts,” the reply reads.

The husband further alleged that Bodare rewarded co-accused Ulhas Falke by appointing him as Shakha Pramukh of the unauthorized shakha and used threats and nuisance to terrorize Sarita. The reply also cites Bodare’s alleged involvement in rioting, land encroachment, criminal intimidation, and violations under the Water Pollution Act.

The husband  asserted that custodial interrogation of the accused is essential for an effective probe, as they may possess vital evidence. He warned that granting anticipatory bail could allow them to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and derail the investigation.

“Bodare is one of the masterminds of this crime and has been absconding since the FIR was registered,” the reply reads.

Another accused, Raj Chandwani, also sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the FIR does not attribute any specific role to him and that his arrest would cause hardship to his family. His plea too was opposed by Khanchandani.

The court has reserved its order on the anticipatory bail pleas.