Did the ED Charge YouTuber Elvish Yadav and Singer Fazilpuria with Wildlife Crime and Money Laundering?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a shocking twist, the Enforcement Directorate has charged popular YouTuber Elvish Yadav and singer Fazilpuria with wildlife crime and money laundering. This case raises questions about the impact of wildlife exploitation in digital content. What will be the consequences for these stars?
Key Takeaways
- ED has charged Elvish Yadav and Fazilpuria.
- Illegal use of protected wildlife in content.
- Significant monetary gains reported.
- Legal consequences loom for both individuals.
- Importance of respecting wildlife protection laws.
New Delhi, Oct 16 (NationPress) In a surprising development, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has lodged a charge-sheet against renowned YouTuber Siddharth Yadav, popularly known as Elvish Yadav, and singer Rahul Yadav, also known as Fazilpuria, for their involvement in a money laundering case tied to the unauthorized use of protected wildlife in their online videos.
Filed on October 13 in a special PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) court in Gurugram, the charge-sheet names four individuals: Elvish Yadav (28), Fazilpuria (35), Sky Digital India Pvt. Ltd., and its director Gurkaran Singh Dhaliwal. The court has yet to formally acknowledge the complaint.
The ED reports that Elvish Yadav purportedly made ₹84,000 from a YouTube video uploaded on March 23, 2023, which featured live snakes and an iguana—both protected under Indian wildlife regulations. The video was titled “Fazilpuria Bhai Ke Shoot Pe Russian Se Mulakat Ho Hi Gayi @fazilpuria” and is alleged to have breached the Wildlife Protection Act.
On the other hand, Fazilpuria is accused of producing a music video named “32 BORE”, which also showcased protected reptiles. The ED claims he earned over ₹50 lakh illegally from this production. Sky Digital India, which managed and monetized Fazilpuria’s content, is said to have facilitated the revenue-generating distribution of these videos.
As part of their investigation, the ED has provisionally attached a property worth ₹50 lakh belonging to Fazilpuria in Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, and a fixed deposit of ₹84,000 associated with Yadav.
The agency asserts that both individuals exploited exotic animals—such as snakes and iguanas—in their videos to enhance their online appeal and profitability, violating wildlife conservation laws in the process. The videos were monetized through Sky Digital India and uploaded to YouTube. Both Yadav and Fazilpuria were interrogated at the ED’s office in Lucknow.
This case originated from FIRs filed by law enforcement in Noida and Gurugram, with Yadav previously detained by the Noida police.
The ED’s allegations encompass violations of the PMLA, NDPS Act, Wildlife Protection Act, and IPC. Yadav, who gained fame by winning Bigg Boss OTT 2, now faces significant legal challenges that could overshadow his online success.
Point of View
I emphasize the significance of adhering to wildlife protection laws. The allegations against Elvish Yadav and Fazilpuria serve as a stark reminder of the responsibilities that come with fame and influence. It's critical for creators to respect the environment and wildlife and to understand the legal implications of their content. The NationPress will continue to monitor this case closely.
NationPress
16/10/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the charges against Elvish Yadav and Fazilpuria?
Elvish Yadav and Fazilpuria have been charged with money laundering and violations of the Wildlife Protection Act due to their use of protected wildlife in their content.
What is the significance of the ED charge-sheet?
The ED charge-sheet highlights the legal ramifications of exploiting wildlife for entertainment and underscores the need for compliance with environmental laws.
How much money is involved in this case?
Elvish Yadav is alleged to have earned ₹84,000 from a YouTube video, while Fazilpuria is accused of generating over ₹50 lakh from his music video.
What actions has the ED taken?
The ED has provisionally attached properties worth ₹50 lakh belonging to Fazilpuria and a fixed deposit of ₹84,000 linked to Yadav as part of their investigation.
What are the wider implications of this case?
This case could set a precedent for how wildlife laws are enforced against digital content creators, emphasizing the importance of ethical content production.
