ED Files Fresh Charges in Rs 2,672 Crore Jewellery House Fraud Case

India’s financial crime watchdog has taken further legal action in a massive alleged banking fraud. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a supplementary charge sheet before a Special Court in Kolkata this week, implicating 15 new accused persons in a money laundering investigation tied to Shree Ganesh Jewellery House (I) Ltd. (SGJHIL). The central agency alleges that proceeds of crime amounting to approximately Rs 2,672 crore were siphoned off through a complex web of domestic and overseas entities.

Background and Context

The scandal traces back to a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) Bank Securities and Fraud Cell. That initial probe accused SGJHIL and its promoters of defrauding a consortium of 25 banks, led by the State Bank of India. Investigators claim the jeweller obtained and enhanced credit facilities by submitting false financial statements and inflated export bills, exploiting weaknesses in consortium lending oversight to move vast sums out of the banking system.

Key Figures and Entities

Among the new names in the charge sheet is Pratyush Kumar Sureka, who was arrested in January 2026 under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The filing names five individuals and 10 corporate entities allegedly used to divert funds. Central to the inquiry are SGJHIL and M/s Alex Astral Power Pvt. Ltd., a company that investigators say served as a primary sink for diverted bank loans intended for the jewellery business.

Legal and Financial Mechanisms

The alleged financial engineering involved diverting substantial loan funds into a renewable energy venture. According to the ED, SGJHIL infused Rs 120 crore as equity through five “conduit entities” that had no independent business activity. These entities, alongside a separate Rs 280 crore bank loan backed by SGJHIL guarantees, facilitated a total investment of around Rs 400 crore into the solar plant.

The investigation alleges that despite being backed by a long-term Power Purchase Agreement—ensuring stable revenue—the plant was sold via sham transactions for less than Rs 20 crore to entities controlled by related parties. This fire sale, described by prosecutors as a grossly undervalued transfer, effectively stripped the asset from the banks’ reach while locking in massive losses for the public sector lenders.

International Implications and Policy Response

The case underscores the persistent challenges in monitoring the end-use of corporate credit. While the ED has moved to attach properties worth approximately Rs 95.75 crore—including the solar power plant in Gujarat and high-value residential flats at Godrej Platinum in Alipore, Kolkata—the alleged use of shell companies to layer funds into tangible assets before stripping them out highlights gaps in financial scrutiny. The involvement of “overseas entities” in the laundering network also points to the difficulties jurisdictions face in tracking cross-border capital flight, even as domestic agencies tighten their enforcement of the PMLA.

Sources

This report draws on statements from the Enforcement Directorate, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.