ED files PMLA complaint in ₹8.62 crore IDBI Bank fraud case, Guwahati
Synopsis
The ED has filed a PMLA prosecution complaint in a ₹8.62 crore IDBI Bank fraud case in Guwahati, alleging forged signatures, concealed deaths, fabricated balance sheets, and layered vendor payments. Crucially, a 2024 One Time Settlement with the bank has not shielded the accused from continuing money laundering liability.
Key Takeaways
The ED, Guwahati Zonal Office filed a PMLA Prosecution Complaint before the Special Court, Kamrup (Metro) on 30 April 2025 .
The case involves an alleged ₹8.62 crore fraud against IDBI Bank's Guwahati branch , with a cash credit facility of ₹3 crore fraudulently secured in December 2009 .
Accused include M/s Ottis Associates Pvt.
Ltd. and Director Suresh Kumar Kashliwal ; CBI has already filed a chargesheet against him and Nirmala Devi Kashliwal .
Alleged methods include forged guarantor signatures, concealment of a guarantor's death, pre-sold properties offered as collateral, and fabricated balance sheets.
Loan was declared NPA on 30 December 2013 and classified as fraud by IDBI Bank on 4 June 2019 .
A One Time Settlement of ₹3.10 crore in 2024 does not extinguish PMLA liability, the ED has asserted.
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Guwahati Zonal Office, has filed a Prosecution Complaint before the Special Court (PMLA), Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in connection with an alleged bank fraud involving IDBI Bank and wrongful losses amounting to ₹8.62 crore, officials said on Thursday, 30 April 2025. The complaint has been filed under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 against M/s Ottis Associates Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, Suresh Kumar Kashliwal.
Background and CBI Involvement
The ED's probe was initiated on the basis of an FIR registered by the CBI's Anti-Corruption Branch in Guwahati under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI has already filed a chargesheet against Suresh Kumar Kashliwal, Nirmala Devi Kashliwal, and the company in the matter. This dual-agency pursuit — CBI on the predicate offence and ED on the money laundering trail — reflects the standard enforcement playbook for bank fraud cases flagged as NPA-turned-fraud by lenders.
How the Alleged Fraud Was Executed
According to investigators, Ottis Associates Pvt. Ltd., through its Director, allegedly fraudulently secured a cash credit facility of ₹3 crore from IDBI Bank's Guwahati branch in December 2009 through a pre-planned conspiracy. Three properties, which had reportedly already been sold to third parties before the creation of the mortgage, were offered as collateral to the bank.
The ED further alleged that signatures of guarantors and mortgagors Rumi Jalan and Narayan Deka were forged on multiple bank documents, including guarantee agreements, affidavits, and mortgage letters. Additionally, the death of another guarantor, Muli Devi Sarawgi, who had passed away on 23 June 2009, was allegedly concealed from the bank at the time of loan processing.
Fabricated balance sheets for financial years 2008-09 and 2009-10, reportedly showing inflated income figures, were also allegedly submitted to strengthen the loan application.
Money Trail and Layering of Proceeds
After securing the loan, the accused allegedly transferred the proceeds immediately into the company's current account and routed the funds through nearly 36 vendor payments, thereby mixing tainted funds with regular business transactions and portraying them as legitimate assets. This layering technique — a classic money laundering method — is central to the ED's PMLA case.
The loan account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30 December 2013. IDBI Bank subsequently classified it as fraud on 4 June 2019 and reported the matter to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on 29 July 2019.
One Time Settlement Does Not End PMLA Liability
Although the accused reportedly settled the gross principal outstanding amount of ₹3.10 crore through a One Time Settlement (OTS) with the bank in September–October 2024, the ED has underscored that the offence of money laundering remains a continuing offence under the PMLA. This is a significant legal position — it signals that a civil settlement with the lender does not extinguish criminal liability under anti-money laundering law, a point of relevance for other NPA fraud cases currently under ED scrutiny across the country.
The matter is now before the Special PMLA Court in Guwahati, and further proceedings are awaited.
Point of View
If upheld by the Special Court, could have sweeping implications for hundreds of NPA fraud cases where promoters have quietly settled with lenders assuming it closes the chapter. The layering through 36 vendor payments also illustrates how even modest-sized frauds deploy sophisticated structuring techniques, a reminder that the ₹8.62 crore headline figure understates the complexity of the alleged scheme.
NationPress
1 May 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ED's PMLA case against Ottis Associates in Guwahati?
The Directorate of Enforcement has filed a Prosecution Complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, before the Special PMLA Court in Guwahati, alleging that Ottis Associates Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Suresh Kumar Kashliwal fraudulently obtained a ₹3 crore cash credit facility from IDBI Bank in December 2009, causing wrongful losses of ₹8.62 crore. The alleged fraud involved forged documents, concealed deaths, and pre-sold properties offered as collateral.
What role did the CBI play in this case?
The CBI's Anti-Corruption Branch in Guwahati registered the original FIR under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, which formed the predicate offence for the ED's money laundering investigation. The CBI has already filed a chargesheet against Suresh Kumar Kashliwal, Nirmala Devi Kashliwal, and the company.
Does the One Time Settlement with IDBI Bank protect the accused from ED action?
No. The ED has explicitly stated that although the accused settled the principal outstanding of ₹3.10 crore through a One Time Settlement with IDBI Bank in September–October 2024, the offence of money laundering is a continuing offence under PMLA and the settlement does not extinguish criminal liability.
How was the loan money allegedly laundered?
According to the ED, after securing the ₹3 crore loan, the funds were transferred into the company's current account and routed through nearly 36 vendor payments, mixing tainted funds with regular business transactions to portray them as legitimate assets — a classic layering technique under money laundering frameworks.
When was the IDBI Bank loan account declared an NPA and classified as fraud?
The loan account was declared a Non-Performing Asset on 30 December 2013. IDBI Bank subsequently classified it as fraud on 4 June 2019 and reported the matter to the Reserve Bank of India on 29 July 2019.
