ED attaches ₹60 crore Raigad sea-facing property in SKNL ₹1,400 crore bank fraud

Share:
Audio Loading voice…
ED attaches ₹60 crore Raigad sea-facing property in SKNL ₹1,400 crore bank fraud

Synopsis

The ED has attached a ₹60 crore Arabian Sea-facing property in Raigad, pushing total seizures in the SKNL bank fraud case to ₹179.55 crore — a probe that has already reached as far as a London property near Buckingham Palace. At the centre is former SKNL CMD Nitin Kasliwal, accused of routing ₹1,400 crore in bank loans through layered group entities.

Key Takeaways

The ED provisionally attached a ₹60 crore sea-facing property in Murud, Raigad under PMLA on 10 June .
The property is linked to the alleged ₹1,400-crore bank fraud by S.
Kumars Nationwide Limited (SKNL) .
Former SKNL CMD Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal is accused of diverting loan funds through a network of group companies and family-controlled entities.
The ED had earlier attached a property near Buckingham Palace, London worth approximately ₹119.55 crore in the same case.
Total attachments in the SKNL case now stand at ₹179.55 crore .
The probe follows searches conducted on 23 December 2025 that yielded evidence of offshore assets held via trusts and corporate structures.

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has provisionally attached a prime Arabian Sea-facing property in Murud, Raigad district, Maharashtra, valued at over ₹60 crore, in connection with the alleged ₹1,400-crore bank fraud involving textile conglomerate S. Kumars Nationwide Limited (SKNL). The attachment was executed by the ED's Indore Zonal Office under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), according to an official statement issued on Wednesday, 10 June.

The Property and Its Alleged Links to Fraud

The attached asset is located near Alibaug in Murud, Raigad, and investigators allege it was acquired using funds siphoned from loans obtained by SKNL from a consortium of banks. The ED has classified the property as directly linked to 'proceeds of crime' generated through the alleged fraud, making it liable for attachment under PMLA provisions.

Investigators allege that Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal, former Chairman and Managing Director of SKNL, diverted and layered borrowed funds through a complex web of interconnected entities and group companies controlled by him and his family members. A significant portion of the credit facilities availed from the bank consortium was allegedly routed through related entities rather than deployed for legitimate business operations.

How the Money Was Allegedly Moved

According to the ED, the diverted funds were passed through multiple layers of transactions designed to obscure their origin and ownership — a classic money-laundering structure. Part of this allegedly laundered money was ultimately used to acquire the Murud property, the agency said. The multi-layered routing through group companies is consistent with patterns the ED has flagged in several other large corporate fraud investigations in recent years.

Earlier Searches and the London Attachment

The current attachment follows extensive searches conducted on 23 December 2025, during which the ED recovered documents and evidence relating to overseas assets allegedly held through offshore trusts and corporate structures. Acting on material seized in those searches, the agency had previously attached a high-value property near Buckingham Palace in London, estimated at approximately ₹119.55 crore.

With the latest Raigad attachment, the total assets attached in the SKNL case now stand at ₹179.55 crore, according to the agency. The cross-border dimension — spanning domestic real estate and a London property — signals the scale and geographic spread of the alleged diversion.

What Comes Next

Provisional attachments under PMLA are subject to confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, which must be approached within a stipulated timeframe. The broader SKNL investigation remains ongoing, and further attachments cannot be ruled out given the agency's stated focus on recovering all assets linked to the alleged proceeds of crime. The case adds to a growing list of high-profile textile-sector fraud probes where enforcement agencies have pursued both domestic and offshore asset recovery.

Point of View

400-crore fraud, enforcement has recovered roughly 13% of the claimed loss so far, underlining how much ground remains. The layered group-company structure alleged here mirrors tactics seen in the Kingfisher, Winsome Diamonds, and ABG Shipyard cases — raising the question of whether bank consortium due-diligence norms have tightened enough to catch related-party diversion before it reaches offshore trusts.
NationPress
29 Jul 2026

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the SKNL bank fraud case?
The SKNL bank fraud case involves allegations that S. Kumars Nationwide Limited (SKNL) , a textile conglomerate, fraudulently diverted approximately ₹1,400 crore in loans obtained from a consortium of banks. Former CMD Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal is accused of routing funds through interconnected group entities rather than using them for legitimate business purposes.
What property has the ED attached in Raigad?
The ED has provisionally attached a sea-facing property in Murud, Raigad district, Maharashtra , valued at over ₹60 crore . The agency alleges the property was purchased using funds diverted from bank loans obtained by SKNL.
What is the total value of assets attached in the SKNL case so far?
Total attachments in the SKNL case now stand at ₹179.55 crore , comprising the ₹60 crore Raigad property and a property near Buckingham Palace in London estimated at ₹119.55 crore , attached earlier following searches in December 2025.
Who is Nitin Kasliwal and what is his alleged role?
Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal is the former Chairman and Managing Director of SKNL . The ED alleges he orchestrated the diversion of loan funds through a layered network of group companies and family-controlled entities, with proceeds ultimately used to acquire assets including the Raigad property.
What happens after a provisional attachment under PMLA?
A provisional attachment under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority within a prescribed timeframe. The attached assets remain frozen pending that adjudication, and the accused can contest the attachment before the authority.
Nation Press
The Trail

Connected Dots

Tracing the thread behind this story — newest first.

8 Dots
  1. Latest 1 week ago
  2. 3 weeks ago
  3. 1 month ago
  4. 3 months ago
  5. 5 months ago
  6. 5 months ago
  7. 5 months ago
  8. 6 months ago
Google Prefer NP
On Google