ED attaches ₹1.51 crore assets in money laundering case against Arunachal IAS officer
Synopsis
The ED has provisionally attached ₹1.51 crore in assets — including a Chandigarh commercial property and mutual funds — against Arunachal Pradesh IAS officer Padma Jaiswal, who allegedly misappropriated ₹28 lakh in government funds as West Kameng Deputy Commissioner by disguising fraudulent Demand Drafts as official transactions and routing proceeds to relatives' accounts.
Key Takeaways
The Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached assets worth ₹1.51 crore on 13 November 2026 under PMLA, 2002 .
The action targets Padma Jaiswal , an IAS officer and former Deputy Commissioner of West Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh .
Attached assets include a ₹1.42 crore commercial property in Chandigarh (in brother's name) and ₹9 lakh in SBI mutual funds (in Jaiswal's name).
The ED identified total proceeds of crime of ₹28 lakh generated through fraudulent dissolution of government DCRs and issuance of Demand Drafts to private individuals.
The case originated from a CBI Anti-Corruption Branch FIR in Guwahati ; a charge sheet was filed on 30 August 2024 before a special court at Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh .
Further investigation by the ED is ongoing.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on 13 November 2026 provisionally attached immovable and movable properties worth ₹1.51 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, in a money laundering probe against Padma Jaiswal, an IAS officer who served as Deputy Commissioner of West Kameng district in Arunachal Pradesh, and others. The Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) was issued by the ED's Itanagar Sub-Zonal office.
What Was Attached
The attached assets include a commercial property in Chandigarh measuring 29.626 square yards, registered in the name of Vishu Bhanu Partap Mahto, the brother of Padma Jaiswal, with an assessed fair market value of ₹1.42 crore. Additionally, mutual fund investments worth ₹9 lakh held in the name of Padma Jaiswal under SBI Multicap Fund-Regular Growth have been provisionally attached, representing the remaining proceeds of crime.
How the Fraud Was Allegedly Carried Out
According to the ED, Jaiswal, while serving as Bomdila Deputy Commissioner, allegedly conspired with other accused public servants to misappropriate government funds. The agency said she fraudulently dissolved three government Deposit at Call Receipts (DCRs) and caused the issuance of ten Demand Drafts aggregating to ₹28 lakh in favour of private individuals by falsely portraying the transactions as government dealings.
The diverted funds were subsequently routed toward the acquisition of immovable properties in the names of her close relatives. Of the total proceeds of crime of ₹28 lakh, ₹19 lakh was allegedly used to acquire Booth No. 274 in Sector-40D, Chandigarh, in the name of Mahto. The remaining ₹9 lakh was diverted through three Demand Drafts toward the proposed purchase of a plot in Sector-86, Mohali in the name of Pooja Jaiswal, the daughter of Padma Jaiswal. That transaction was subsequently cancelled and the plot was never registered in her name.
Background: CBI FIR and Charge Sheet
The ED investigation was initiated on the basis of an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)'s Anti-Corruption Branch in Guwahati against Padma Jaiswal and co-accused, including Nor Bahadur Sonar, the then Finance and Accounts Officer, and Rinchin Phuntsok, the then Cashier. The charges were framed under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI subsequently filed a charge sheet on 30 August 2024 before the Court of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) at Yupia in Arunachal Pradesh.
Notably, examination of banking transactions, Demand Drafts and registered property documents established the financial trail linking the diverted government funds to the acquisition of the Chandigarh property, according to the ED. This is part of a broader pattern of PMLA proceedings the agency has pursued against state-level public servants in the Northeast.
What Happens Next
The ED has stated that further investigation is underway. Under PMLA provisions, a provisional attachment remains in force for 180 days unless confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The case will now move toward adjudication, and the accused retain the right to contest the attachment order before the authority.
Point of View
₹28 lakh, contrasted with the ₹1.51 crore attachment, reflecting how property appreciation amplifies proceeds-of-crime valuations over time. The routing of funds through demand drafts disguised as government transactions, then into relatives' names across two cities, suggests a layered laundering structure atypical of small-scale district-level corruption. For accountability-watchers, the more significant question is whether the special court proceedings at Yupia move at a pace commensurate with the attachment action, or whether — as often happens — the PMLA attachment runs years ahead of the predicate-offence conviction.
NationPress
14 Nov 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ED's money laundering case against Arunachal Pradesh IAS officer Padma Jaiswal?
The ED is investigating Padma Jaiswal, a former Deputy Commissioner of West Kameng district in Arunachal Pradesh, for allegedly misappropriating ₹28 lakh in government funds by fraudulently dissolving DCRs and issuing Demand Drafts to private individuals. The agency provisionally attached ₹1.51 crore in assets on 13 November 2026 under the PMLA, 2002.
What properties has the ED attached in this case?
The attached assets include a commercial property in Sector-40D, Chandigarh, measuring 29.626 square yards, valued at ₹1.42 crore, registered in the name of Vishu Bhanu Partap Mahto (Jaiswal's brother), and mutual fund investments worth ₹9 lakh in Jaiswal's own name under SBI Multicap Fund-Regular Growth.
What is the basis of the CBI case against Padma Jaiswal?
The CBI's Anti-Corruption Branch in Guwahati registered an FIR against Padma Jaiswal and co-accused, including Nor Bahadur Sonar (then Finance and Accounts Officer) and Rinchin Phuntsok (then Cashier), under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A charge sheet was filed on 30 August 2024 before the Special Judge at Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh.
How were the government funds allegedly misappropriated?
According to the ED, Jaiswal allegedly conspired with other public servants to fraudulently dissolve three government Deposit at Call Receipts (DCRs) and issue ten Demand Drafts totalling ₹28 lakh to private individuals, falsely portraying them as government transactions. The diverted funds were then used to acquire properties in the names of close relatives.
What happens after a provisional attachment order under PMLA?
Under the PMLA, a provisional attachment order remains valid for 180 days and must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The accused can contest the attachment before that authority. The ED's investigation in this case is stated to be continuing.
