CBI searches 15 premises in Reliance ADA Group loan-fraud probe

The Enforcement Action

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) searched 15 premises across Delhi and Mumbai on Saturday, 18 July 2026, in connection with its cases against Reliance ADA Group firms, per the agency's statement reported by the business press. The searches covered entities linked to Reliance Commercial Finance Limited (RCFL) and Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL) and, according to the CBI, spanned "23 interlinked entities" said to have been used as conduits to divert bank funds. The premises searched included those of a former chief financial officer of RHFL, a former secretarial head of the Reliance ADA Group and a former chief treasury consultant of RHFL, identified in the reports by role rather than by name.

The CBI has stated that it has registered seven First Information Reports against Reliance Communications Limited, RHFL, RCFL and Reliance Telecom Limited on complaints from public sector banks and the Life Insurance Corporation of India, with the total alleged loss across these seven cases put at approximately ₹27,337 crore. The agency added that it had earlier searched 38 locations, filed four chargesheets and arrested seven accused persons, all of whom are in judicial custody, and that the investigation is being monitored by the Supreme Court.

The 18 July action sits alongside a finding already on the public record. In a final order dated 22 August 2024 (reference WTM/AN/CFID/CFID_1/30660/2024-25), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) held that a fraudulent scheme had been orchestrated to siphon funds from RHFL, restrained Anil D. Ambani and a group of associated entities from the securities market for five years and imposed penalties. The noticees contested SEBI's proceedings through written replies and an oral hearing; no public response to the 18 July searches was on record at the time of writing.

How the Scheme Worked

The most detailed account on the public record is SEBI's 2024 order, which examined RHFL for the financial year 2018-19. SEBI found that the listed housing-finance company disbursed large "General Purpose Corporate" (GPC) loans to a set of borrowers it described as credit-unworthy conduits, which in turn on-lent the money to entities the regulator found to be linked to the promoter. In the order's words, the arrangement was a scheme "to siphon off funds from the public listed company" by "structuring them as loans" to weak borrowers.

SEBI recorded that GPC loans made up about 55 per cent of RHFL's lending against roughly 45 per cent for housing loans during the period. It noted that the RHFL board, at its meeting on 11 February 2019, expressed concern at this concentration, directed that no further corporate loans be extended, asked auditors to check documentation and due diligence, and set up a sub-committee to review the exposures. Despite those directions, the order found, GPC loans continued to be extended until May 2019.

On the numbers, SEBI's order tabulated total loans of ₹9,295.25 crore disbursed by RHFL to 45 GPC borrower entities, of which non-performing assets and write-offs stood at ₹6,931.31 crore as on 30 September 2021. The regulator observed that the RHFL scrip, which had closed near ₹59.60 in March 2018, collapsed to about ₹0.75 by March 2020, and that more than nine lakh shareholders remained invested in the company. SEBI also noted that its conclusion was echoed by the statutory auditor PwC, by a forensic audit commissioned by lead lender Bank of Baroda, and by a National Financial Reporting Authority order dated 26 April 2024.

The CBI's inquiry, still at the investigation stage, concerns the banking side of the same broader matter. The agency alleges that group entities were used as conduits to divert funds lent by banks, and it has framed the seven FIRs on complaints from public sector lenders and LIC. These are allegations under investigation, not proven findings. An FIR and a chargesheet contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

The Law Invoked

SEBI's order was passed under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 11(4A), 11B(1) and 11B(2) of the SEBI Act, 1992, which empower the regulator to issue directions, restrain persons from the securities market and levy penalties in the interest of investors. It recorded violations of Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3(b), (c), (d), 4(1) and 4(2)(f), (k) and (r) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003, which prohibit fraudulent dealing and market manipulation, together with several disclosure provisions of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015.

The monetary penalties were imposed under Section 15HA (for fraudulent and unfair trade practices), Section 15HB (a residual penalty) and, in one instance, Section 15A(a) (failure to furnish information) of the SEBI Act. Anil D. Ambani was penalised ₹25 crore, RHFL was restrained for six months and penalised a smaller sum, and each conduit entity was penalised ₹25 crore.

The CBI cases, as reported, relate to alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal misappropriation under the penal law, and criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Because the precise sections are set out in the agency's own FIRs and chargesheets rather than in a public order, they are described here in general terms rather than cited by number.

What Happens Next

SEBI's final order is appealable to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, and thereafter to the Supreme Court on a question of law; the order itself notes that it takes effect immediately. Separately, the order records that SEBI will determine the quantum of illegal gains made through the scheme and may initiate further action, meaning a disgorgement proceeding could follow.

On the criminal side, the CBI's process runs from FIR to investigation, chargesheet and, once a court takes cognizance, trial. Four chargesheets have already been filed and seven persons arrested, per the agency, and the wider investigation is under Supreme Court supervision. At every stage before conviction, the individuals and companies named remain accused, not guilty, and are entitled to contest the allegations.

For lenders, recovery of the disputed sums runs on separate tracks, through debt recovery proceedings and insolvency processes; RHFL and RCFL have already passed through resolution under the RBI framework, which is why SEBI treated the company differently from the individuals it held responsible.

What It Means

For ordinary investors, the RHFL episode is a stark illustration of how governance failure at a listed financial company can destroy shareholder value: a scrip near ₹59.60 fell to under one rupee, and more than nine lakh shareholders were left holding it. The protective lesson is to watch for the warning signs SEBI itself flagged, namely a lender concentrating its book in large corporate loans to little-known entities, related-party exposures, auditor qualifications, and a board raising concerns that management does not act upon.

Investors can verify much of this themselves. SEBI publishes its enforcement orders at sebi.gov.in, and its registers let anyone check whether a broker, adviser or research analyst is registered before parting with money. A five-year market restraint of the kind imposed here means the named persons cannot deal in or be associated with listed securities during that period, which is a signal to treat any solicitation involving them with caution. None of this is a forecast of the criminal cases; it is simply what the record already shows, and how a reader can check similar risks calmly rather than in panic.

FAQ

Have the people named been convicted of anything?

No. The CBI's FIRs, searches and chargesheets are investigative steps, not verdicts, and SEBI's 2024 order is a regulatory finding that is appealable, not a criminal conviction. An FIR and a chargesheet contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

What exactly did SEBI order in 2024?

SEBI restrained Anil D. Ambani and a group of associated entities from the securities market for five years, barred RHFL for six months, and imposed penalties, including ₹25 crore on Anil Ambani. It found a scheme to divert RHFL funds through general purpose corporate loans to conduit borrowers, in violation of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations.

What is the CBI investigating now?

Per its statement, the CBI has registered seven FIRs against Reliance ADA Group companies on complaints from public sector banks and LIC, with an alleged loss of about ₹27,337 crore. On 18 July 2026 it searched 15 premises in Delhi and Mumbai, adding to earlier searches at 38 locations, four chargesheets and seven arrests.

Can the SEBI order be appealed?

Yes. A SEBI order can be challenged before the Securities Appellate Tribunal within the prescribed limitation period, and a SAT ruling can be appealed to the Supreme Court on a question of law. Until set aside, the directions in the order remain in force.

How can I check if my broker or adviser is registered?

Use the registers on sebi.gov.in to confirm that a broker, investment adviser or research analyst holds a valid SEBI registration, and read the regulator's enforcement orders section to see whether an entity or person has been the subject of an order. Verify before you invest, not after.

Where can I read the official order?

SEBI's final order in the matter of Reliance Home Finance Limited, dated 22 August 2024, is published on the SEBI website and is the primary source for the regulatory findings summarised here.

This report is based on the official SEBI final order dated 22 August 2024. The 18 July 2026 CBI searches were surfaced via coverage aggregated by Google News, reporting the agency's statement.