Chennai PMLA court acquitted Kanishk Gold accused; ED appealing

What the Record Shows

The Special Court for the Prevention of Money Laundering Act at Chennai acquitted M/s Kanishk Gold Pvt Ltd and its co-accused on 20 September 2023, in C.C. No. 13 of 2018, ending the money-laundering prosecution against them. The persons acquitted were the company, its managing director Bhoopesh Kumar Jain, M/s Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt Ltd and M. Suresh Khatri. The trial court's judgment did not accept the prosecution's central document, and the accused walked free after years under charge.

The acquittal is the fact that defines this matter. The Enforcement Directorate had built a case around an alleged loss to a bank consortium, but at the close of trial the Special Court found the prosecution's evidence wanting and recorded an acquittal. No finding of guilt was entered against any of the accused.

The current position, verified against the official record, is that the acquittal is under challenge but stands. The Madras High Court granted the ED leave to appeal against the acquittal on 17 October 2024, and the resulting Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 2024 remains pending. At the hearing on 13 July 2026 the Additional Solicitor General sought and was granted three weeks to take instructions, and the matter was listed for 4 August 2026. Until that appeal is decided, the persons named remain acquitted, not convicted.

How It Worked

What follows is what the agencies alleged, not what a court has found. The ED and CBI had alleged that, during 2011, the accused obtained working-capital credit from a consortium of 14 banks with the State Bank of India as lead bank, and that funds were diverted through what the prosecution described as fraudulent means, causing an alleged loss of Rs 824.15 crore as on 31 December 2017. The prosecution had alleged that loan funds were rotated between accounts, that paper transactions were conducted with jewellers, and that gold purchases were misrepresented, per the case as put to the trial court.

Those allegations did not survive trial. The Special Court rejected the Forensic Audit Report, the prosecution's key document, on the ground that it was "neither original nor a certified copy" and did not satisfy the requirements of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act for admitting electronic evidence. With that report excluded, the evidentiary foundation of the money-laundering case fell away, and the court acquitted all the accused.

The matter had been prosecuted under the PMLA, 2002, together with Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. When the ED sought leave to appeal, its argument, as recorded by the Madras High Court, was that bank officials had subsequently certified the audit report and that the trial court had wrongly treated a vital document as inadmissible, warranting appellate review in a large economic-offence case. The High Court granted leave on that basis, but granting leave is a decision to hear the appeal, not a reversal of the acquittal.

Who Lost Money

The alleged loss, and it is only an allegation that failed at trial, was put at Rs 824.15 crore said to be owed to the SBI-led consortium of 14 banks as of the end of 2017. That figure was the prosecution's assessment, not a sum any court has attributed to the acquitted persons as a proven liability in the money-laundering case.

In the course of the investigation the ED had attached assets of the company and its promoters, an investigation-stage step taken before the trial concluded. Those measures secured property while the case was live; they did not establish guilt, and the criminal prosecution ended in acquittal.

It is worth stating plainly that no loss attributable to the acquitted persons was established in the PMLA trial. The people who bore concrete consequences included the acquitted accused themselves, who spent roughly five years as defendants in a criminal prosecution before the Special Court cleared them in September 2023. Any separate recovery the banks may pursue through civil or debt-recovery channels is a different track from the criminal case reported here.

Where It Stands Now

As of today, the acquittal recorded on 20 September 2023 stands, and the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused was never displaced by any conviction. The ED's challenge is alive but undecided: the Madras High Court granted leave to appeal on 17 October 2024, and Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 2024 is pending, most recently listed for 4 August 2026 after the prosecution sought time on 13 July 2026.

An appeal against an acquittal faces a settled standard: appellate courts are slow to disturb an acquittal unless the trial court's view is shown to be perverse or impossible, because the acquittal reinforces the accused's presumption of innocence. Whether the ED can persuade the High Court to admit the forensic audit report it says was wrongly excluded will be central to the appeal.

Because the matter arose from a CBI FIR, an ED prosecution and provisional attachment, it is worth restating the principle these facts engage: an FIR, a chargesheet and a provisional attachment contain allegations, not findings of guilt, and here the allegations were tested at trial and did not result in a conviction. Readers can follow how such appeals resolve through the enforcement archive.

What It Means

The Kanishk Gold matter is a useful corrective to the assumption that an accusation, an attachment and years of prosecution add up to guilt. They do not. The case turned not on a moral judgment but on evidence, and specifically on whether a crucial electronic document met the admissibility standard in Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. When it did not, the prosecution's case could not stand, and the court acquitted.

For an ordinary reader, the takeaway is about how the process actually works rather than any lesson about a product to buy or avoid. An acquittal is reported far less often than an arrest, yet it is the outcome the system produced here. The gap between what an agency alleges and what a court finds is real, and it is bridged only by admissible evidence tested at trial. Those weighing gold or jewellery-linked investments can compare returns against regulated options using a simple gold investment calculator, but the point of this report is procedural fairness, not investment guidance.

The wider significance is that due process cuts both ways: the same courts that confirm attachments and convict on proof also acquit when the proof is not there.

FAQ

Did the court find the accused guilty?

No. The Special Court for the PMLA at Chennai acquitted M/s Kanishk Gold Pvt Ltd, its managing director Bhoopesh Kumar Jain and the co-accused on 20 September 2023 in C.C. No. 13 of 2018. No conviction was recorded, and the presumption of innocence in their favour was never displaced.

Why were they acquitted?

The trial court rejected the prosecution's Forensic Audit Report as inadmissible because it was neither original nor a certified copy and did not meet the requirements of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act for electronic evidence. With that document excluded, the money-laundering case could not be sustained and the court acquitted all the accused.

Is the acquittal final?

Not yet. The Madras High Court granted the ED leave to appeal on 17 October 2024, and Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 2024 is pending, listed for 4 August 2026. Until the appeal is decided, the acquittal stands and the accused remain cleared.

What had the agencies alleged?

The ED and CBI had alleged that the accused obtained working-capital credit from a consortium of 14 banks led by the State Bank of India during 2011 and diverted funds, causing an alleged loss of Rs 824.15 crore as on 31 December 2017. Those allegations were tested at trial and did not result in a conviction.

Where can I read the official order?

The Madras High Court order dated 17 October 2024 granting leave to appeal (Crl.O.P. No. 19431 of 2024, citation 2024:MHC:3574) sets out the acquittal and the allegations, and the subsequent order dated 13 July 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 2024 records the current status. Both are available on Indian Kanoon.

This report is based on the Madras High Court order dated 17 October 2024 in Crl.O.P. No. 19431 of 2024 (2024:MHC:3574) and the subsequent order dated 13 July 2026 in Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 2024, reviewed on 2 August 2026.