CBI and ED widen RHFL, RCFL loan-diversion probe into Reliance ADA

The Enforcement Action

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) searched 15 premises across Delhi and Mumbai on 18 July 2026 in connection with the alleged diversion of loans raised by Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL) and Reliance Commercial Finance Limited (RCFL), two former lending arms of the Reliance Anil Ambani Group. According to reported details of the agency's statement, the searches covered RHFL, RCFL, Reliance Communications Limited, Reliance Telecom Limited and 23 interlinked entities, alongside the premises of a former chief financial officer of RHFL, a former secretarial head of the group and a former chief treasury consultant. The agency has alleged wrongful loss to lenders of about Rs 27,337 crore across seven first information reports (FIRs) registered in the matter, and has said its interlinked entities "were allegedly used as conduit for the diversion of bank funds".

The CBI action is the latest step in a matter that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been pursuing in parallel under money-laundering law. In an official press release dated 8 July 2026, the ED said it had conducted search operations on 7 July 2026 at the premises of M/s E-Complex Private Limited and the residential premises of one of its directors, seizing "incriminating documents, records relating to immovable properties and other evidentiary materials". The ED said it is investigating the "diversion and siphoning of public funds" by RHFL and RCFL under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

Per the ED release, the agency initiated its investigation on the basis of multiple FIRs registered by the CBI, Delhi, pursuant to complaints filed by 11 lenders: Yes Bank, Bank of Baroda, Bank of Maharashtra, Canara Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Punjab National Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, State Bank of India, UCO Bank, Union Bank of India and Axis Bank. The ED has quantified proceeds of crime of Rs 15,548 crore in the case. The Reliance Anil Ambani Group had not issued a public response to the latest CBI searches on the record at the time of writing.

How the Scheme Worked

The mechanism, as the ED describes it in its 8 July 2026 release, centred on corporate lending by two non-banking finance entities. The ED alleges that "public funds amounting to thousands of crores of rupees, raised by RHFL and RCFL, were systematically diverted through a web of shell and group companies controlled and managed by the Reliance Anil Ambani Group". Corporate loans, it says, were sanctioned to these entities "in gross violation of prudent lending norms, without adequate due diligence, proper documentation or assessment of creditworthiness".

According to the ED, the beneficiary entities that received these loans "were found to be financially weak, lacking genuine business operations and possessing little or no repayment capacity". The agency further alleges that the directors of the shell entities were employees or close associates of the group who "functioned under the directions of the senior management of the Group", and that the bank accounts and books of these entities were operated by officials of flagship group companies, including Reliance Infrastructure Limited, Reliance Power Limited and Reliance Capital Limited.

The procedural history stretches across several stages. The ED says it made two arrests on 15 April 2026: Amitabh Jhunjhunwala, an ex-director of Reliance Capital Limited, and Amit Bapna, an ex-chief financial officer of Reliance Capital Limited, "for their active involvement in diversion of funds from RHFL and RCFL". At the relevant time, the release notes, both RHFL and RCFL were subsidiaries of Reliance Capital Limited. Both accused are, per the ED, in judicial custody. The agency then filed a prosecution complaint before the Special Court (PMLA) on 12 June 2026, and carried out the 7 July 2026 searches "in continuation of the ongoing investigation".

The CBI's own trail runs alongside this. Reported details of the agency's 18 July statement indicate that, before the latest searches, the CBI had already searched 38 locations, filed four chargesheets and arrested seven accused persons in the RHFL and RCFL cases. The seven FIRs rest on complaints from public sector banks and, per the reported statement, Life Insurance Corporation of India among the affected lenders. Every one of these characterisations remains an allegation under investigation, not a proven fact.

The Law Invoked

The ED's proceedings run under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The PMLA lets the agency investigate the laundering of "proceeds of crime" that flow from a scheduled predicate offence, provisionally attach property it believes represents those proceeds, and prosecute through a designated Special Court. The predicate offences here are the criminal cases the CBI registered on the banks' complaints; the ED's jurisdiction is triggered by those FIRs rather than freestanding.

Under the PMLA, a provisional attachment is not final. It must be placed before an Adjudicating Authority, which decides whether to confirm it. In this matter the ED says properties worth Rs 4,510 crore have been attached "till now", of which attachments worth Rs 3,926 crore "have been confirmed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority till date". Confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority is a civil-standard finding on the attachment, not a criminal conviction of any individual.

The CBI cases proceed under general criminal law on the strength of the banks' complaints. The official documents reviewed for this report do not enumerate the specific penal sections in each FIR, so none are stated here; the CBI matters are, at this stage, accusations to be tested at trial rather than adjudicated findings.

What Happens Next

From here the two tracks follow standard, separate procedures. On the ED side, the prosecution complaint filed on 12 June 2026 must be taken up by the Special Court (PMLA), which will decide on cognizance before any trial. The provisional attachments already confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority can be challenged before the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA and, thereafter, in the High Court. The two arrested former executives remain in judicial custody and are entitled to apply for bail; their custody is a procedural stage, not a determination of guilt.

On the CBI side, the seven FIRs and four chargesheets already filed will move towards cognizance and, if charges are framed, to trial. The 18 July searches are an investigative step that may or may not lead to further chargesheets.

A chargesheet, FIR or provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Nothing in this report should be read as a finding that any named individual or entity has committed an offence.

What It Means

For ordinary savers, the practical signal is about how non-banking finance companies (NBFCs) that raise money from the public and from banks can be scrutinised long after the loans in question were made. RHFL was a listed housing-finance company with retail bondholders and shareholders; RCFL was a large NBFC. When lending entities of this size are alleged to have routed funds to related parties, the recovery process for affected banks and investors typically runs for years through attachment, adjudication and trial, and any distribution to victims comes only after the courts rule.

There is a verification lesson too. Retail investors can check whether a finance company or its instruments are regulated by looking up the entity on the Reserve Bank of India's register of NBFCs and, for listed debt or equity, on the Securities and Exchange Board of India and stock-exchange databases. Registration does not guarantee good conduct, as this matter shows, but it establishes who the regulator is and where a complaint goes. Where an NBFC's lending is heavily concentrated among related entities, that concentration is itself a documented risk pattern worth weighing before buying its bonds or fixed deposits.

Finally, an ED attachment does not put money back in investors' hands on its own. Attached assets are frozen pending adjudication and any eventual court-ordered restitution, not an immediate payout, so affected depositors and bondholders should track the resolution rather than expect a quick recovery.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet, FIR or provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The CBI searches and the ED's attachments and prosecution complaint are investigation and enforcement steps that must still be tested before the courts.

What exactly did the agencies do?

Per its 8 July 2026 release, the ED searched premises linked to E-Complex Private Limited on 7 July 2026, has quantified proceeds of crime of Rs 15,548 crore, attached properties worth Rs 4,510 crore (Rs 3,926 crore confirmed) and made two arrests. The CBI, per reported details of its 18 July statement, searched 15 premises tied to RHFL, RCFL and related entities.

Can these actions be challenged?

Yes. ED attachments can be contested before the Adjudicating Authority and the PMLA Appellate Tribunal; the prosecution complaint is tried before the Special Court (PMLA). CBI chargesheets are tested at trial after the court takes cognizance. Arrested persons may apply for bail. Each forum offers the named parties an opportunity to respond.

How can I check if a finance company is regulated?

Look up the entity on the Reserve Bank of India's public register of NBFCs, and for listed securities check the Securities and Exchange Board of India and stock-exchange filings. These confirm the regulator and disclosure record. They do not certify conduct, but they show where oversight and complaints sit.

Where can I read the official record?

The Enforcement Directorate's press release dated 8 July 2026 sets out its account of the RHFL and RCFL investigation, the amounts attached and the arrests. It is the primary official document underlying this report and is linked below.

This report is based on the official Enforcement Directorate press release dated 8 July 2026. The parallel CBI searches were surfaced via coverage carried on Google News.