New Delhi (Gurpreet Singh)— The Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a criminal case against Essel Group founder Subhash Chandra and multiple related commercial entities over an alleged loan fraud of approximately 1,322 crore rupees involving LIC Housing Finance Limited. The first information report, lodged by the agency on August 31 following a formal complaint by the public sector lender, invokes provisions of criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust, and public misconduct under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The investigative complaint centres on two major credit facilities extended in 2018 totaling 980 crore rupees, comprising a 500-crore rupee facility sanctioned to Vasant Sagar Properties Private Limited and Pan India Infra Projects Private Limited, alongside a 480-crore rupee credit line disbursed to Digital Subscriber Management and Consultancy Services Private Limited and Spirit Infrapower and Multiventures Private Limited. Both loan arrangements were underwritten by personal guarantees executed by Chandra. Investigators allege that loan approvals were secured through inflated net worth statements, with submitted valuation certificates valuing Chandra’s personal wealth between 40,562 crore and 59,113 crore rupees at the time of sanction.
The lender raised scrutiny over the figures after Chandra took a drastically contradictory stance during subsequent personal insolvency resolution proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal. During those proceedings, Chandra formally pegged his 2024 net worth at merely 31.79 crore rupees and denied ever holding the vast valuation figures declared to the financial institution. The housing finance provider alleges that the inflated certificates were part of an orchestrated scheme to induce loan disbursements, after which funds were siphoned and guarantor assets were alienated to impede debt recovery.
The escalating probe unfolds against the backdrop of an intense legal dispute over Chandra’s insolvency settlement plan, which offered dissenting lenders a minuscule fraction of their admitted claims and was subsequently put on hold by a special five-member tribunal bench. While the lender has challenged the restructuring proposal alongside institutions like Canara Bank and Union Bank, it maintains that its underlying mortgage liens remain valid and that corporate debtor liabilities are not extinguished by the personal guarantor proceedings.
