ED attaches Rs 51.70 crore Dubai property in SBI letters-of-credit case

What the Record Shows

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Bhopal Zonal Office, has provisionally attached nine immovable properties in Dubai worth Rs 51.70 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), per its press release dated 18 November 2025. The order records that the attachment was carried out on 17 November 2025 and covers apartments and commercial spaces in the emirate.

The properties, the ED states, belong to Shrikant Bhasi, described in the release as the main director and significant beneficial owner of M/s Advantage Overseas Private Limited (AOPL). The agency has attached them in what it calls "the matter of bank fraud" involving AOPL, its directors, guarantors and related persons, which it alleges caused a wrongful loss of Rs 1,266.63 crore to the State Bank of India (SBI). The properties, the release adds, had been gifted by Bhasi to his daughter.

A provisional attachment under PMLA is a preventive step taken during investigation. It is not a conviction and it is not a finding of guilt. The ED itself notes at the close of its release that "further investigation is under progress", and the attachment must be placed before the Adjudicating Authority for confirmation before it can hold. Neither a chargesheet nor a conviction in this matter has been reported on the public record.

The nine assets named by the ED sit in Centurion Residence at Dubai Investment Park Second, Dubai Silicon Oasis, Liwa Heights in Al Thanyah Fifth, Business Bay, and the World Trade Centre Residences. The agency says these were "acquired out of Proceeds of Crime" generated in connection with the loss booked at SBI's Shahpura branch.

How It Worked

The mechanism the ED describes turns on trade finance. According to the release, 12 Foreign Letters of Credit (FLCs) worth USD 200 million - roughly Rs 1,266.63 crore - devolved on SBI between April and May 2018. A letter of credit is a bank's promise to pay an overseas supplier on a buyer's behalf; it "devolves" on the bank when the buyer cannot fund it at maturity, leaving the bank to pay.

The ED states that AOPL "failed to fulfil the mandatory margin requirements and could not infuse funds at the time of LC rollover". As the company's fixed-deposit margins were depleted and it did not honour its obligations, the release says, the bank "was compelled to make payments to overseas suppliers", crystallising the loss. It is worth noting that a devolved letter of credit can arise from ordinary commercial failure as much as from wrongdoing; the characterisation of these transactions as fraud is the ED's, made at the investigation stage.

From there, the agency alleges a laundering trail. The proceeds, it says, were "generated by AOPL and its group entities through illegal merchanting trade transactions, diversion of bank funds, fabrication of documents, circular trading, and layering of illicit proceeds." Merchanting trade - buying goods abroad and selling them abroad without the goods entering India - is legitimate when genuine, but the ED alleges it was used here to move value.

The final step, per the release, was concealment. The ED alleges that Bhasi, who it says "exercised strategic control over AOPL and its associated entities", acquired the Dubai properties from these funds and then "deliberately gifted" them to his daughter through gift deeds executed in 2022-2023, "without any consideration to hide the POC". The daughter is identified only as the transferee of gifted property; the ED does not name her as an accused, and nothing in the record attributes wrongdoing to her.

The agency adds that its investigation "uncovered a network of domestic and foreign entities used for layering, diversion of funds, and acquisition of assets in India and abroad."

Who Lost Money

The loss in this matter falls on a single public institution rather than a class of retail investors. The ED puts the wrongful loss to the State Bank of India at Rs 1,266.63 crore, booked at the Shahpura branch when the 12 letters of credit devolved. Because SBI is majority state-owned, that is ultimately public-sector bank capital.

Against that Rs 1,266.63 crore figure, the assets the ED has attached in this specific action total Rs 51.70 crore - the nine Dubai properties. That gap is characteristic of money-laundering enforcement: an attachment secures whatever traceable proceeds investigators can identify and reach, which is typically a fraction of the headline loss, and it does so provisionally, pending adjudication. The release describes the Dubai holdings as "a major component of the POC" flowing from the devolved LCs, but recovery for the bank, if any, would depend on the outcome of the PMLA proceedings and any parallel recovery action.

No individual depositors lost money here, and the ED records no retail victim class. The public interest, rather, lies in what the matter shows about how trade-finance exposure at a public-sector bank can crystallise into a large loss, and how enforcement reaches assets held abroad.

Where It Stands Now

As of today, the position on the public record is that the attachment is provisional. Under the PMLA, a provisional attachment order must be placed before the Adjudicating Authority, which has to confirm or vacate it within 180 days; a confirmed attachment can then be challenged before the Appellate Tribunal and the courts. The ED's release, dated 18 November 2025, records the attachment and states that "further investigation is under progress". No chargesheet, prosecution complaint or conviction in this matter has been reported.

Oquilia could not independently confirm any subsequent order of the Adjudicating Authority, appeal, or further attachment beyond the 18 November 2025 release; readers should treat the provisional attachment as the last verified step.

The presumption of innocence applies throughout. A provisional attachment records the ED's allegations, not a court's finding that any offence was committed; it contains allegations, not findings of guilt, the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. AOPL, its directors and Shrikant Bhasi are entitled to contest the attachment and any charge that may follow.

What It Means

For readers, the practical lesson sits on the banking side, not the investing side. A letter of credit shifts a supplier's payment risk onto a bank; if the buyer cannot fund the instrument at maturity, the bank pays and then pursues the buyer. When that happens at the scale the ED describes - USD 200 million across 12 instruments - the exposure lands on the lender, and, for a public-sector bank, on public capital.

The action also illustrates the reach of the PMLA. Because Indian agencies cannot directly seize foreign immovable property, the ED here attached the Dubai assets under the PMLA as proceeds of crime, and looked through a 2022-2023 gift to do so, on the allegation that the transfer was meant to conceal those proceeds. Attachments increasingly follow assets across borders and across family transfers.

None of this is investment advice, and the case is not a verdict; it is a snapshot of an investigation. An attachment tells you what an agency alleges and what it has frozen, not what a court has decided. To see how enforcement in this category tends to unfold, the Oquilia enforcement archive tracks similar PMLA attachments, including the ED's Rs 391 crore attachment in the QFX forex-bot matter and the SEBI recovery notice in the Sadhna Broadcast case.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A provisional attachment under the PMLA contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The ED's order records what the agency alleges and the assets it has frozen. Only a competent court can determine guilt, and no conviction in this matter has been reported.

What exactly did the ED attach?

Per its press release dated 18 November 2025, the ED, Bhopal Zonal Office, provisionally attached nine immovable properties in Dubai - apartments and commercial spaces worth Rs 51.70 crore - on 17 November 2025 under the PMLA, in the AOPL bank-fraud matter it is investigating.

How is the Rs 1,266.63 crore figure arrived at?

The ED states that 12 Foreign Letters of Credit worth USD 200 million (approximately Rs 1,266.63 crore) devolved on SBI's Shahpura branch between April and May 2018, after AOPL, per the release, could not meet margin requirements at rollover, compelling the bank to pay overseas suppliers.

Is the daughter who received the properties accused of anything?

No. The ED's release identifies her only as the person to whom the properties were gifted through deeds it says were executed in 2022-2023. She is not named as an accused, and nothing in the record attributes wrongdoing to her.

Can the attachment be challenged?

Yes. A provisional attachment must be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days, and a confirmed order can be appealed to the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA and thereafter to the courts. Until then it remains a provisional, preventive measure.

Where can I read the official record?

The ED's press release dated 18 November 2025 is published on the Directorate of Enforcement website and is linked in the source note below.

This report is based on the press release of the Directorate of Enforcement dated 18 November 2025 and was reviewed against the official record on 31 July 2026.