ED secures conviction of 5 in Syndicate Bank money laundering case; 3-year jail awarded
Synopsis
Five accused in a nearly two-decade-old Syndicate Bank loan fraud have been convicted of money laundering by a Ghaziabad court, each handed three years of rigorous imprisonment. Notably, two of the five — Rajeev Kumar and Pramod Kumar — had earlier been acquitted in the predicate CBI case, making the ED's standalone PMLA convictions a significant legal marker on the agency's prosecutorial reach.
Key Takeaways
A special court in Ghaziabad convicted five accused — V.N.
Mathur , Rajeev Kumar , Arvind Chaudhary , Ankit Chaudhary , and Pramod Kumar — under the PMLA, 2002 on 3 November 2026 .
Each convict was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹50,000 ; non-payment attracts an additional three months of simple imprisonment.
The fraud originated at Syndicate Bank's Gajraula branch during 2006–07 , where loans were sanctioned using forged deeds, false certificates, and fabricated valuation reports.
Loan proceeds were laundered through cash withdrawals, savings accounts, and demand drafts, and later invested in properties in Alipur (J.P.
Nagar) and Dehradun .
Rajeev Kumar and Pramod Kumar had been acquitted in the earlier CBI scheduled-offence trial but were convicted by the ED under the PMLA on separate evidence.
The case was initiated on the basis of two CBI FIRs filed following a complaint by the Chief Vigilance Officer of Syndicate Bank .
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Lucknow Zonal Office, has secured the conviction of five accused in a money laundering case tied to a bank loan fraud involving Syndicate Bank, with a special court in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, sentencing each of them to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The judgment, delivered on 3 November 2026 in Case No. 5/23, marks a significant enforcement outcome under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
Who Was Convicted and What the Court Ordered
The Special Judge, Ghaziabad, convicted V.N. Mathur, Rajeev Kumar, Arvind Chaudhary, Ankit Chaudhary, and Pramod Kumar under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002. Each convict was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of ₹50,000. Failure to pay the fine will result in an additional three months of simple imprisonment.
How the Fraud Was Executed
V.N. Mathur, who served as Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank's Gajraula branch during 2006–07, allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy with the late Narendra Singh, Arvind Chaudhary, and others. According to the ED's investigation, Mathur sanctioned loans and overdraft limits to the accused, their firms, and associates on the basis of forged sale deeds of non-existent properties, false non-encumbrance certificates, and fabricated valuation reports.
The loan proceeds were not used for their sanctioned purposes. Instead, the funds were reportedly withdrawn in cash and routed through various savings bank accounts and demand drafts to conceal their illicit origins — a classic layering technique used in money laundering.
Where the Proceeds Ended Up
The investigation revealed that the proceeds of crime were subsequently invested in immovable properties, including plots in Alipur, J.P. Nagar district, and Dehradun. The ED stated that the accused knowingly acquired, possessed, used, and concealed these proceeds and projected them as untainted property, constituting the offence of money laundering under the PMLA.
The CBI Link and a Notable Reversal
The ED launched its investigation based on two FIRs registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), Ghaziabad, following a complaint by the Chief Vigilance Officer of Syndicate Bank. Notably, in the scheduled offence proceedings, the Special Judge, CBI Court No. 2, Ghaziabad, had convicted Mathur under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while acquitting Rajeev Kumar and Pramod Kumar. The ED's independent investigation, however, produced sufficient evidence to secure money laundering convictions against both men — a demonstration of PMLA proceedings operating on a distinct and broader evidentiary basis than predicate criminal offences.
This conviction reinforces the ED's position that an acquittal in the scheduled offence does not insulate an accused from prosecution under the PMLA, a principle that has been contested and litigated extensively in Indian courts. The case is among a series of enforcement actions the agency has pursued against bank loan frauds from the mid-2000s.
Point of View
And this judgment adds to that body of precedent. What mainstream coverage often misses is the timeline: the fraud dates to 2006–07, meaning it took nearly two decades from the original misconduct to a money laundering conviction — a lag that raises legitimate questions about the pace of financial crime enforcement in India, however welcome the eventual outcome.
NationPress
4 Nov 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the money laundering case in which the ED secured conviction in Ghaziabad?
The case involves a bank loan fraud at Syndicate Bank's Gajraula branch in 2006–07, where the then Branch Manager V.N. Mathur and others allegedly sanctioned loans using forged sale deeds, false non-encumbrance certificates, and fabricated valuation reports. The proceeds were laundered through bank accounts and demand drafts and later invested in immovable properties.
What sentence did the Ghaziabad court award to the five convicted accused?
The Special Judge, Ghaziabad, sentenced each of the five accused to three years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹50,000. In case of non-payment of the fine, an additional three months of simple imprisonment applies.
Why were Rajeev Kumar and Pramod Kumar convicted under PMLA despite being acquitted in the CBI case?
The two were acquitted in the predicate scheduled-offence trial by the CBI court. However, the ED conducted an independent investigation and placed separate evidence on record under the PMLA, 2002, allowing the court to convict them specifically for money laundering offences — a legally distinct charge from the predicate crime.
How did the ED initiate its investigation into the Syndicate Bank fraud?
The ED's Lucknow Zonal Office launched its money laundering investigation based on two FIRs registered by the CBI's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) in Ghaziabad, which were themselves triggered by a complaint filed by the Chief Vigilance Officer of Syndicate Bank.
Where were the proceeds of the Syndicate Bank fraud invested?
According to the ED's investigation, the laundered funds — originally withdrawn in cash from loan accounts — were routed through savings bank accounts and demand drafts and subsequently invested in immovable properties, including plots in Alipur in J.P. Nagar district and in Dehradun.
