Gujarat: Did the ED Return Rs 1.85 Crore to SBI in Sai Prasad PMLA Case?

Click to start listening
Gujarat: Did the ED Return Rs 1.85 Crore to SBI in Sai Prasad PMLA Case?

Synopsis

In a notable event, the ED restored Rs 1.85 crore to SBI, related to the Sai Prasad case. This action highlights the ongoing battle against money laundering and showcases the commitment to restore defrauded assets to their rightful owners.

Key Takeaways

  • ED returned Rs 1.85 crore to SBI under PMLA.
  • Assets were linked to M/s Sai Prasad Organics Pvt. Ltd fraud case.
  • Investigation revealed fraudulent activities by bank officials.
  • Restitution showcases commitment to financial justice.
  • Case highlights the importance of regulatory diligence.

Surat, July 9 (NationPress) In a significant update under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Surat Sub Zonal Office, has restored movable assets valued at Rs 1.85 crore - inclusive of accrued interest - to the State Bank of India (SBI).

The assets had previously been seized in relation to the money laundering case involving M/s Sai Prasad Organics Pvt. Ltd and others. This restitution was conducted in compliance with a directive issued by the Special PMLA Court in Ahmedabad Rural.

According to officials, this action underscores the agency's ongoing efforts to trace and recover proceeds of crime, ensuring they are returned to the legitimate claimants, commonly referred to as the “victims of money laundering” under the Act. The ED's investigation was initiated following an FIR (No. 2(E)/2009 dated 29 January 2010) lodged by the CBI's Banking Security and Fraud Cell (BS&FC), Mumbai.

The inquiry unveiled that Manoj Kumar Gupta, who was the Chief Manager at SBI’s Salabatpura branch, fraudulently discounted letters of credit (LC) favoring M/s Sai Prasad Organisers Pvt. Ltd using counterfeit documents. A total of Rs 12.12 crore was illicitly transferred to the account of M/s Sai Prasad Organics Pvt. Ltd between October 8 and October 30, 2009.

In the course of the investigation, the ED provisionally attached movable assets worth Rs 1.16 crore through Attachment Order No. 01/2015 dated March 25, 2015. This attachment was later ratified by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA, New Delhi, on July 6, 2015.

A prosecution complaint was also lodged before the Special Court in Ahmedabad against Gupta and others. During the trial proceedings, SBI submitted an application under Section 8 of the PMLA requesting the restitution of the seized properties.

The ED did not contest this request, leading the court to subsequently endorse the return of the assets to the bank. Officials highlighted that this case exemplifies the Directorate’s dedication to ensuring that defrauded institutions receive compensation, and that proceeds of crime are reintroduced into the legitimate financial system.

Point of View

I emphasize that this case is a testament to the relentless efforts of the ED in combating financial fraud. The restitution of assets not only serves justice but also restores faith in the financial system, showcasing the commitment to protect institutions and their stakeholders.
NationPress
17/07/2025

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the significance of the ED returning Rs 1.85 crore to SBI?
The return signifies the ED's commitment to recovering assets lost to financial fraud and ensuring justice for victims of money laundering.
How did the fraud involving M/s Sai Prasad Organics Pvt. Ltd occur?
The fraud involved the Chief Manager at SBI discounting letters of credit using fake documents, resulting in the illegal transfer of substantial funds.
What role does the PMLA play in such cases?
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) enables authorities to take action against money laundering and recover proceeds of crime.
What actions has the ED taken in this case?
The ED attached assets related to the case, conducted investigations, and facilitated the restitution of funds to SBI.
What are the broader implications of this case?
This case reinforces the importance of regulatory vigilance in protecting the financial system and compensating victims of fraud.