Delhi High Court upholds fugitive economic offender tag on Bhandari

What the Record Shows

A special court in Delhi declared Sanjay Bhandari a fugitive economic offender on 5 July 2025, and the Delhi High Court upheld that declaration on 9 April 2026, dismissing his appeal in CRL.A. 1071/2025. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the declaration under Section 12(1) of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 was validly made, rejecting his challenges to the warrant and to the Rs 100 crore threshold. The declaration clears the Enforcement Directorate to move for confiscation of the assets named in its case.

The Indian action followed, rather than reversed, an outcome abroad. On 28 February 2025 the England and Wales High Court allowed Bhandari's appeal against extradition and ordered his discharge, in Sanjay Bhandari v Government of India [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin). Lord Justice Holroyde and Mrs Justice Steyn found a real risk of treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in Tihar prison and held India's assurances insufficient. That judgment expressly did not determine the merits of the criminal allegations; it turned on prison conditions.

The two rulings sit together. A UK court refused to send him to India on human-rights grounds, while an Indian court held that a failed extradition is not immunity from proceedings at home. Bhandari, a UK-based defence-sector consultant, denies the allegations.

How It Worked

The case began with the tax authorities. The Income Tax Department alleges that Bhandari held undisclosed foreign income and assets, and its final assessment order dated 23 March 2020 assessed those assets at approximately Rs 655 crore, with a tax liability of around Rs 196 crore, per the record before the Delhi High Court. The department pursued a complaint under Section 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act, 2015, which criminalises wilful attempts to evade tax on undisclosed overseas holdings.

On that foundation the Enforcement Directorate registered a money-laundering case, ECIR/HQ/03/2017, in February 2017, alleging that the assets represented proceeds attracting the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. A separate first information report, FIR No. 173/2016, was registered in relation to the Official Secrets Act. Bhandari had left India in 2016 and has remained in the United Kingdom.

The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act allows a court, on the Directorate's application, to declare a person a fugitive economic offender where a warrant has been issued for a scheduled offence involving at least Rs 100 crore and the person has left the country and refuses to return to face prosecution. The special court accepted the Directorate's application on 5 July 2025, making Bhandari the sixteenth person so declared. On appeal, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that his resistance to extradition abroad did not answer the statutory test, observing that arrest in a foreign jurisdiction for extradition does not equate to surrender to the Indian judicial process.

In the United Kingdom, India had sought his extradition on two requests: money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, and tax evasion under Section 51 of the Black Money Act, together concerning roughly £64.8 million in allegedly undisclosed foreign income and assets. The England and Wales High Court dismissed his appeal on the other grounds it considered, but allowed it on Article 3 and ordered his discharge.

Who Lost Money

On the record, the party said to be out of pocket is the public exchequer. The Income Tax Department's assessment put the alleged tax liability at approximately Rs 196 crore on undisclosed foreign assets valued at around Rs 655 crore, per the assessment order relied on before the High Court. There is no identified private complainant and no pool of retail depositors or investors; the alleged loss is to the state, in the form of tax and black-money offences.

Nothing has yet been confiscated. The fugitive-economic-offender declaration is the gateway to confiscation, not the confiscation itself: the Directorate must now proceed under Section 12 of the Act before assets can be forfeited to the central government. Whether the sums the department has assessed are ultimately realised depends on those confiscation proceedings and on parallel appeals under the Black Money Act, which the judgment records as pending before the Commissioner of Appeals. In short, the figures quoted are assessed and alleged, not recovered, and the recovery process has only just been cleared to begin.

Where It Stands Now

As of today, the operative Indian position is the High Court's judgment of 9 April 2026 upholding the fugitive-economic-offender declaration. The matter now moves to confiscation under Section 12 of the 2018 Act, and one consequence of the tag is that Bhandari may be barred from defending civil claims. His remedies include appeals under the Black Money Act, which the judgment records as pending before the Commissioner of Appeals; no appeal to the Supreme Court against the declaration is noted in the judgment text.

Abroad, the discharge ordered by the England and Wales High Court on 28 February 2025 stands, and that refusal of extradition was decided on prison-conditions grounds under Article 3, not on the strength of the allegations. The underlying criminal case in India remains untested at trial. A chargesheet, a tax assessment and a fugitive-economic-offender declaration contain allegations and findings on process, not a finding of guilt on the criminal charges; the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, Bhandari denies the allegations, and due process continues.

What It Means

The case marks out the limits of extradition as a shield. A person can defeat a surrender request abroad, here on the human-rights condition of the receiving prison, and still be declared a fugitive economic offender at home, because the two questions are different. Extradition asks whether a foreign state may lawfully hand someone over; the FEO Act asks whether a person who has left India is refusing to return to face a scheduled economic offence. The Delhi High Court's reasoning that a failed extradition is not immunity is the practical heart of the ruling.

For readers, the durable point is procedural literacy. A declaration under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act is a status that unlocks confiscation and a disability from civil litigation; it is not a criminal conviction and does not decide the tax or money-laundering charges, which run on their own tracks. The Black Money Act, in turn, taxes and penalises undisclosed foreign assets, and its assessments can themselves be appealed. Oquilia's enforcement archive has followed parallel cross-border matters, including the UK High Court's refusal to reopen Nirav Modi's extradition appeal and a Belgian court's clearance of Mehul Choksi's extradition to India. Understanding which door a given order opens, whether assessment, attachment, declaration, confiscation or conviction, is what separates a headline from the actual legal position.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet, a tax assessment and a fugitive-economic-offender declaration contain allegations and findings on process, not findings of guilt on the criminal charges. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the trial has not been held, Bhandari denies the allegations, and due process continues.

What exactly did the Delhi High Court decide?

On 9 April 2026 the Delhi High Court, per Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, dismissed Bhandari's appeal and upheld the special court's declaration of him as a fugitive economic offender under Section 12(1) of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. The court rejected his challenges to the warrant and to the Rs 100 crore threshold.

Does the UK discharge mean he was cleared of the allegations?

No. The England and Wales High Court allowed his appeal on 28 February 2025 and ordered his discharge because it found a real risk of treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in Tihar prison. The judgment expressly did not determine the merits of the criminal allegations.

What is a fugitive economic offender declaration?

It is a status a court may confer, on the Enforcement Directorate's application, where a warrant exists for a scheduled economic offence of at least Rs 100 crore and the person has left India and refuses to return. It permits confiscation of assets and can bar the person from defending civil claims. It is not a criminal conviction.

Have any assets been recovered?

Not yet. The declaration is the gateway to confiscation, not the confiscation itself. The Directorate must proceed under Section 12 of the Act before assets can be forfeited, and appeals under the Black Money Act were pending before the Commissioner of Appeals as of the judgment. The sums quoted are assessed and alleged, not recovered.

Where can I read the official record?

The Delhi High Court judgment of 9 April 2026 is reported on Indian Kanoon, and the UK ruling is Sanjay Bhandari v Government of India [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin), published by the National Archives caselaw service. Both judgments are public documents.

This report is based on the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 9 April 2026 in CRL.A. 1071/2025 and the England and Wales High Court judgment [2025] EWHC 449 (Admin), reviewed on 1 August 2026.