Fugitive Economic Offenders and Bank Frauds
The Finance Ministry has disclosed to the Lok Sabha on Monday, December 1, 2025, that fifteen individuals have been declared wanted under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEOA) as of October 31, 2025. Among these, nine are implicated in substantial financial frauds targeting public sector banks. This revelation highlights the ongoing efforts to address and recover funds lost due to economic offenses.
Financial Implications and Recoveries
Two of the fugitive economic offenders have pursued a one-time settlement. The aggregate principal amount outstanding as of when the loans linked to these 15 fugitives were classified as non-performing assets (NPA) amounted to ₹26,645 crore. The accumulated interest up to October 31, 2025, reached ₹31,437 crore. Recoveries thus far total ₹19,187 crore, while the settlement amount stands at ₹1,630 crore, with discounts offered amounting to ₹3,542 crore. These figures underscore the significant financial impact of these offenses and the challenges in recovering the full amounts.
List of Fugitive Offenders
In response to a query from Lok Sabha member Murari Lal Meena, Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary provided a list of the fugitive offenders. This list includes prominent names such as Nirav Modi and Vijay Mallya, both of whom are subjects of extensive legal proceedings. Other individuals named include Nitin Sandesara, Chetan Sandesara, and Dipti C. Sandesara of the Sterling Group; Hitesh Kumar; Narendrabhai Patel; Sudharshan Venkataraman and Ramanujam Sesharathinam of Zylog Systems Limited; and Pushpesh Kumar Baid. The inclusion of multiple individuals from the same groups or companies suggests a pattern of organized financial crime.
Sandesara Brothers' Settlement
Nitin and Chetan Sandesara have reached settlements regarding certain dues with Indian Overseas Bank, Punjab National Bank, Union Bank of India, and State Bank of India. This indicates ongoing efforts to negotiate and recover funds through settlements, although the full resolution of these cases remains pending.
Supreme Court Directive on Sterling Biotech Case
Approximately a week prior to this announcement, the Supreme Court directed the quashing of all criminal proceedings against the Sandesara brothers in the Sterling Biotech bank fraud case. This directive is contingent upon their deposit of ₹5,100 crore as a “full and final payment” to the lender banks. The Bench stated that “If the petitioners (Sandesara brothers) are ready to deposit the amount as settled in the one-time settlement (OTS), and public money comes back to the lender banks, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not serve any useful purpose.” This decision reflects a pragmatic approach to recovering public funds, even if it means potentially foregoing criminal prosecution.
PMLA Convictions and Enforcement Directorate Actions
Responding to another query from member Shatrughan Prasad Sinha, the Ministry reported that 120 individuals have been convicted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) since June 2014. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has registered 6,312 cases under the Act and filed 1,805 main prosecution complaints and 568 supplementary complaints as of October 31, 2025. These figures highlight the scale of money laundering investigations and prosecutions in recent years.
Amendments to PMLA and Closure Reports
Following an amendment to the law in August 2019, the ED is now required to submit closure reports before a Special Judge under the Act. Since this amendment, the agency has filed closure reports in 93 cases where no offence of money laundering was established, including cases where the predicate offence had been quashed. Prior to this amendment, cases where no money-laundering offence was made out were closed with the approval of the regional Special Director of Enforcement. Accordingly, from the inception of the PMLA on July 1, 2005, up to July 31, 2019, a total of 1,185 cases were closed,” the Ministry stated. This illustrates the evolving legal framework and the ED's process for handling cases where money laundering cannot be substantiated.
