ED attaches Rs 129.80 crore in Ahmedabad realty fraud case

The Enforcement Action

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Ahmedabad Zonal Office, has provisionally attached immovable properties worth Rs 129.80 crore in a matter involving alleged real estate fraud against homebuyers and investors in Ahmedabad. According to the agency's press release dated 17 August 2026, the attachment was made through a Provisional Attachment Order dated 14 August 2026, issued under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The order names Ronak Ravjibhai Sonani, Vipulbhai Gordhanbhai Gangani, M/s Keshav Narayan Group and others. The ED states the matter relates to real estate schemes marketed to ordinary homebuyers, small investors, traders and middle-class families, and that the properties now frozen represent what the agency describes as proceeds of crime.

The attached assets are three parcels of land: about 6,603.332 sq mtrs at Chharodi, about 7,284 sq mtrs at Shela, and about 30,798 sq mtrs at Jesangpura and Agol in Taluka Kadi. Their combined value, as stated in the order, is Rs 129.80 crore.

A provisional attachment under the PMLA is an investigation-stage measure, not a finding of guilt. It restrains the use or transfer of property the agency believes is linked to an offence, and it must be confirmed by an independent Adjudicating Authority before it can hold. The persons named in the order have not publicly responded to it, and the ED has said further investigation is under progress.

How the Scheme Worked

The account that follows reflects what the ED's press release alleges; the claims are yet to be tested through due process.

The agency says it began its investigation on the basis of five FIRs registered by the DCB Police Station, Satellite Police Station, Navrangpura Police Station and Bopal Police Station in Ahmedabad. Chargesheets, the ED notes, were subsequently filed against Ronak Sonani, Vipul Gangani and others for offences under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

According to the order, the accused projected their real estate schemes as genuine projects and offered flats and shops at attractive pre-launch prices. The ED alleges they also promised assured returns ranging from 54% to 100%, a rate of guaranteed gain that has no ordinary place in a property booking. The projects, the agency says, were marketed without mandatory approvals such as non-agricultural (N.A.) permission and RERA registration.

The release identifies two schemes. In the Chharodi scheme, the ED says money was collected from about 250 buyers and investors; in the Akshar Anant scheme, from more than 44. In both, per the agency, the promised flats and shops were never delivered and the money collected was never refunded.

The ED alleges a planned method: buyers were induced through false promises, funds were collected and then diverted, and the properties acquired from those funds were subsequently concealed. In the Chharodi project, the agency says buyers were told that RERA registration and N.A. permission were "under process", after which the project land was sold or transferred to third parties named in the order, leaving the buyers stranded. In the Akshar Anant project at Shela, the ED states that MoUs and similar documents were issued to make the project appear genuine before it was shut down and the land transferred onward. The agency alleges that properties were moved to third parties through dummy sale deeds without genuine payment, with fictitious payment details recorded in registered documents to make the transactions look legal.

The Law Invoked

The single provision the ED cites in its action is Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. This is the section that empowers an authorised ED officer to provisionally attach property suspected to be proceeds of crime, where there is reason to believe it may otherwise be concealed, transferred or dealt with in a way that could frustrate later confiscation. An attachment under Section 5(1) is provisional and time-bound; it is a preventive freeze, not a transfer of ownership to the state and not a penalty.

The predicate offences sit outside the PMLA. The ED states that the chargesheets in the underlying police cases were filed under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the penal code that has replaced the Indian Penal Code. The press release does not enumerate those section numbers, and this report does not supply them. Money-laundering proceedings under the PMLA are built on such predicate offences: the alleged cheating recorded in the FIRs is what allows the ED to trace and restrain the "proceeds of crime", the term the agency uses for property said to be derived from a scheduled offence.

What Happens Next

A provisional attachment order is the first step in a defined statutory sequence, not the last word. Under the PMLA, the order must be placed before an independent Adjudicating Authority, which has up to 180 days to decide whether to confirm it. The persons whose property has been attached are entitled to be heard at that stage and to contest the attachment on the record.

If the attachment is confirmed, the matter can move towards confiscation, and the property may eventually be available for restitution to rightful claimants, an outcome the ED expressly flags in this case as a possibility for the defrauded homebuyers and investors. A party aggrieved by a confirmation can appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA, and onward to the High Court on questions of law.

Separately, the underlying criminal cases continue in the ordinary courts. A chargesheet or a provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Nothing in the attachment order decides the criminal question, which will be settled only at trial.

What It Means

For homebuyers, this action is a reminder that the surest protection sits in documents that can be checked before any money changes hands. The ED's own advisory, issued with the order, is unusually specific: verify RERA registration and statutory approvals, inspect title documents, land records and encumbrance details, and confirm whether a property is mortgaged or under dispute before paying.

The alleged pattern here is a familiar one. A pre-launch price that looks too good, an assured return of 54% to 100% on a flat, approvals described as merely "under process", pressure to pay in cash, and reliance on booking forms or notarised papers rather than a registered agreement to sale are, taken together, the warning signs the agency itself lists. A genuine developer's RERA registration can be checked on the relevant state RERA portal in minutes, and a project without it cannot lawfully be marketed or sold.

For those already affected, the attachment matters in a practical way: it freezes the identified land so it cannot be sold on again while the case proceeds, and it opens a route, through confiscation and possible restitution under the PMLA, by which value may one day return to victims. That process is slow and not guaranteed, but the freeze is what preserves the possibility at all.

FAQ

Does the ED order mean the people the ED named are guilty?

No. A provisional attachment order and a chargesheet contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The ED's attachment must still be confirmed by an independent Adjudicating Authority, and the criminal cases behind it will be decided only at trial.

What exactly did the ED order?

The ED's Ahmedabad Zonal Office issued a Provisional Attachment Order dated 14 August 2026 under Section 5(1) of the PMLA, freezing immovable properties worth Rs 129.80 crore. These are three land parcels, at Chharodi, Shela, and Jesangpura and Agol, that the agency alleges represent proceeds of crime in a real estate matter.

Can the order be appealed or contested?

Yes. The attachment is provisional and must be placed before an Adjudicating Authority, where affected parties can be heard, within 180 days. If it is confirmed, that decision can be challenged before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal and, on questions of law, before the High Court.

How can I check whether a property project is genuine?

Confirm the project's RERA registration on your state RERA portal, and check for non-agricultural (N.A.) permission and other statutory approvals. Inspect the title deed, land records and encumbrance certificate, and insist on a registered agreement to sale. Treat guaranteed high returns, cash demands and "approvals under process" as warning signs.

What should affected homebuyers do?

Keep every payment receipt, booking form and communication, and report the matter to the police, the state RERA authority and other competent authorities. Because the ED has attached the linked land, affected buyers may later be able to press claims for restitution during the confiscation stage; legal advice on filing and documenting a claim is worthwhile.

Where can I read the official record?

The ED published a press release dated 17 August 2026 describing the Provisional Attachment Order. It is available on the Directorate of Enforcement website and is linked in the source note below.

This report is based on the official ED press release dated 17 August 2026 on the Provisional Attachment Order in the Ronak Sonani and M/s Keshav Narayan Group matter. It was surfaced via enforcement coverage carried on Google News.