CBI probes Reliance Communications loans; names Anil Ambani in FIR

What the Record Shows

The State Bank of India classified the loan account of Reliance Communications Ltd as "fraud" in June 2025 and reported the classification to the Reserve Bank of India, acting under the RBI's Master Directions on Frauds. On a complaint by SBI dated 18 August 2025, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a First Information Report on 21 August 2025 naming Reliance Communications Ltd, its former promoter Anil D. Ambani, and unnamed public servants and private persons.

According to SBI's complaint, the classification concerns an alleged wrongful loss of about Rs 2,929.05 crore to SBI alone, drawn from a wider exposure of Rs 19,694.33 crore that 17 public sector banks and financial institutions are said to carry against the company. A bank's "fraud" tag is an administrative step under the RBI framework; it is not a judicial finding that fraud occurred, and it obliges the lender to report the account and lodge a complaint.

No charge has been framed and no chargesheet has been filed in the SBI matter. The CBI FIR records allegations that remain under investigation. Reliance Group has publicly denied any wrongdoing and has said the loans are the subject of a concluded insolvency process.

How It Worked

Per SBI's complaint, which the bank says relies on a forensic audit, loan funds advanced to Reliance Communications were allegedly diverted and mis-utilised through interlinked and circuitous transactions among group entities between 2013 and 2017. SBI alleges that money moved between connected companies in a manner its auditors could not reconcile with the sanctioned purpose of the facilities.

The CBI's investigation has since widened. After registering the FIR, the agency searched premises and questioned Anil Ambani over two days. In 2026 the CBI arrested two Reliance Communications executives, Joint President D. Vishwanath and Vice-President Anil Kalya. The CBI's arrest memo additionally alleges that funds were routed through shell entities and that letters of credit were improperly discounted for service transactions the agency describes as non-genuine.

Running alongside the CBI inquiry is a separate proceeding by the Enforcement Directorate. The ED says it provisionally attached assets of Reliance Anil Ambani Group entities under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Rs 3,084 crore on 31 October 2025 and a further Rs 1,120 crore in December 2025. A provisional attachment is an investigation-stage measure that must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority; it is not a finding of guilt.

The procedural history of the fraud tag itself has been contested at every level. A Bombay High Court division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale held on 3 October 2025 that the promoter must face the consequences of the classification. A single judge granted interim relief in December 2025, citing what the order described as violations of mandatory RBI rules. On 23 February 2026 a division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad quashed that interim order, terming it "illegal and perverse", and allowed the fraud-classification proceedings to continue.

Who Lost Money

The money at stake is public money. SBI's complaint puts the wrongful loss to the bank at Rs 2,929.05 crore, part of a total exposure of Rs 19,694.33 crore that, per the bank, is spread across 17 public sector banks and financial institutions. The lead consortium is said to include Bank of India, Central Bank of India, UCO Bank, Union Bank of India, Canara Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and IDBI Bank, alongside legacy exposures inherited from Corporation Bank, Syndicate Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce.

Reliance Communications itself has been through insolvency. Its lenders have pursued recovery through the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, where realisations for financial creditors have fallen well short of admitted claims. Minority shareholders of the once-listed company also bore losses as its equity value collapsed.

It is worth being precise about the attachment figures. The ED's own orders record Rs 3,084 crore attached in October 2025 and Rs 1,120 crore in December 2025; a larger cumulative figure that has circulated in some reports aggregates several actions and is not a single official number. Whether any attached asset is ultimately available to lenders will depend on how the PMLA proceedings and the insolvency recoveries are reconciled.

Where It Stands Now

As of today the matter is at the investigation stage. The Supreme Court dismissed Anil Ambani's special leave petitions against the Bombay High Court order on 16 April 2026, which means the banks may continue with the fraud classification; the courts have not ruled that fraud was committed. The CBI FIR remains under investigation, with two executives arrested and the promoter questioned but not charged in that matter. The ED's provisional attachments await confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority.

A First Information Report and a provisional attachment contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the persons named are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. No trial has begun in the SBI matter, and the classification the courts allowed to continue is an administrative consequence, distinct from any criminal liability that a trial would have to establish.

Reliance Group maintains that it has done nothing wrong and has said it will pursue available legal remedies. Any further movement - a chargesheet, framing of charges, or confirmation or release of the attachments - would change the footing of the case, and this report reflects the position on the official record as reviewed today.

What It Means

The case is a study in how differently a "fraud" label travels through India's system. When a lender classifies an account as fraud under the RBI Master Directions, that is an internal supervisory act with real consequences - reporting to the RBI, a bar on fresh credit, and referral to investigating agencies - but it is not the same thing as a court finding that fraud occurred. The Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court decided a narrow question: whether the banks followed the process and could proceed. They did not weigh the underlying allegations.

For an ordinary reader, the practical lesson is about reading enforcement news carefully. An FIR names suspects and sets an investigation running; an ED attachment freezes assets a probe is examining; a bank's fraud tag is an administrative flag. None of these is a verdict. Each is a stage, and the distance between the earliest stage and a conviction can run for years.

The wider record of such matters sits in Oquilia's enforcement archive. Related recent reports include the ED hawala case in which the Delhi High Court refused bail to Naresh Jain and SEBI's order concerning ZEE Entertainment and its promoters, each a different stage of the same enforcement chain.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A First Information Report and a provisional attachment contain allegations, not findings of guilt. Anil Ambani and the others named are presumed innocent until proven guilty. No charge has been framed in the SBI matter and no trial has begun; the investigation is continuing.

What exactly did the courts decide?

The Bombay High Court, and the Supreme Court on 16 April 2026, decided only that the banks may proceed with classifying the account as fraud under the RBI Master Directions. Per those orders, the courts did not find that fraud was committed; they upheld the process, not the underlying allegation.

What is a bank "fraud" classification?

It is an administrative step under the RBI's Master Directions on Frauds. When a lender's forensic review flags an account, the bank classifies it, reports it to the RBI, stops fresh lending and refers the matter to agencies such as the CBI. It is a supervisory flag, not a court verdict.

What has the Enforcement Directorate done?

The ED says it provisionally attached assets of Reliance Anil Ambani Group entities under Section 5(1) of the PMLA - Rs 3,084 crore in October 2025 and Rs 1,120 crore in December 2025. Provisional attachments must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and can be challenged before the appellate tribunal.

Has anyone been arrested?

The CBI has arrested two Reliance Communications executives, Joint President D. Vishwanath and Vice-President Anil Kalya, per its 2026 action. Anil Ambani was questioned over two days but has not been arrested or charged in the SBI matter as of this report.

Where can I read the official record?

The Bombay High Court's decision allowing the classification to continue is reported on the government's news service, and the December 2025 interim order is available on Indian Kanoon. Both are linked at the end of this report.

This report is based on the Bombay High Court order allowing fraud-classification proceedings to continue against Anil Ambani and Reliance Communications and the related Bombay High Court interim order of 24 December 2025, reviewed on 2 August 2026.