ED attached property worth Rs 1,953.33 crore in 14 cases over a month; 7 more reached court

Provisional attachments of property made up 14 of the 23 Enforcement Directorate actions under the money-laundering law that Oquilia reported between 5 October 2026 and 4 November 2026. Prosecution complaints alone made up 7, and 2 stories reported both steps at once. The 14 attachments alone put a value of Rs 1,953.33 crore on the property the ED says it attached, while the 7 complaints alone cover Rs 1,192.7 crore that the ED alleges was involved. Every figure in this analysis is the ED's own, as Oquilia's stories report it.

What we found

The split is clear. Of the 23 actions, 14 (61%) were provisional attachments only, 7 (30%) were prosecution complaints only, and 2 (9%) were an attachment and a complaint reported together. An attachment is the ED's step to hold property it alleges is proceeds of crime while a case goes on. A prosecution complaint is the ED's charge document, filed in a special court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Across all 23, the stated amounts add up to Rs 3,191.89 crore. That total mixes two different things, though, and should be read in parts. For an attachment, the figure is the value of the property the ED says it attached. For a complaint, it is the sum the ED alleges was raised, diverted or lost. Split that way, the 14 attachment-only actions total Rs 1,953.33 crore, the 7 complaint-only actions total Rs 1,192.7 crore, and the 2 combined actions total Rs 45.86 crore.

The median amount across the 23 is Rs 40.4 crore. The smallest is Rs 1.66 crore and the largest is Rs 932.54 crore. The largest 3 amounts come from these stories. In the Nexa Evergreen case, the ED filed a prosecution complaint in a Jaipur PMLA court, alleging that 47,664 investors got back Rs 932.54 crore less than they put in. In the Reliance Communications and RHFL bank fraud cases, the ED said it attached assets worth Rs 510 crore, including two aircraft and windmills. In the Shivam Associates case, the ED's Mangalore office provisionally attached assets worth Rs 427.16 crore; the ED alleges Rs 2,459.49 crore was collected from more than 35,000 investors on promises of 3% a month.

Deposit and investment schemes recur in the table. The ED alleges that Dream Makers Global promised depositors doubled money in 150 days, and it attached assets worth about Rs 85.19 crore in that case. In the Hashpe case, the ED filed a prosecution complaint and attached Rs 14.16 crore, alleging a crypto investment scheme that promised 1% daily returns. Near Jaipur, the ED attached land worth Rs 1.66 crore that it says represents money from investment schemes that promised 2-3% monthly returns. In the Jaa Lifestyle case, the ED's complaint alleges the company collected Rs 4.29 crore from the public through a paid ad-viewing membership scheme.

Bank loan cases are the other large group. The ED attached Rs 53.95 crore in the Parekh Aluminex case, which it alleges caused a loss of about Rs 2,296 crore to a consortium of banks. It attached 14.51 acres of Kolkata land worth Rs 85.20 crore in the Unity Infraprojects case. In its DHFL probe, the ED attached land at Karjat and a plot in New Delhi worth Rs 40.40 crore, alleging DHFL funds went to two firms for services that were never rendered. In the Maa Tarini Industries case, it attached three floors of a Rourkela mall worth Rs 24.60 crore, alleging that loans from PEC Limited, a Government of India enterprise, were diverted.

Online and cyber cases appear too. The ED's Bengaluru office attached Rs 23.35 crore in an online betting case where it alleges proceeds of crime exceeded Rs 2,300 crore. Its Prayagraj office attached about Rs 3.72 crore in a case where, the ED alleges, call centres used remote access apps against elderly UK residents. Its Ahmedabad office filed a complaint in a 'digital arrest' case, alleging that Rs 2.95 crore taken from two elderly victims was laundered through mule accounts.

The Marriage Assistance Scheme is the only entry that appears 2 times. The ED attached properties worth Rs 5.37 crore in a case over Madhya Pradesh's Marriage Assistance Scheme, and later filed a prosecution complaint in Bhopal alleging Rs 30.18 crore went to 5,923 suspicious cases. These are separate actions, so both are counted. The state is not stated in 18 of the 23 stories (78%). Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan appear in 2 each, and Chhattisgarh in 1, where the ED attached about Rs 31.70 crore and filed a supplementary complaint against 17 accused in the District Mineral Foundation funds case.

These are allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty in court, and due process continues. A provisional attachment must be confirmed by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, and the ED's claims must be proved in court.

What it means for you

Several of the cases in this table began with money that members of the public put into a scheme, an app or a website. The ED's later attachment or complaint does not return that money on its own. If you have lost money to an online scheme, a fake trading site or a call that pressures you to pay, report it on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, which takes complaints about cyber fraud, or call the helpline 1930 as soon as you can.

If a scheme is taking deposits and promising fixed high returns, you can check and report it on RBI's Sachet portal, which takes information on unauthorised deposit-taking and lets you look up whether an entity is regulated.

How we counted

Oquilia counted 23 stories it published between 5 October 2026 and 4 November 2026 on provisional attachment orders the ED issued, or prosecution complaints it filed, under the PMLA. We searched Oquilia's published archive in the enforcement category for "Enforcement Directorate", "attach" and "prosecution complaint", and read every story the searches returned.

We kept a story only when it reported one attachment or one complaint, and when it was based on an official document. We left out stories about searches, arrests, custody, frozen accounts and convictions on their own, because those are not attachments or complaints. We left out recovery actions by SEBI, a return of money to investors, and a story without an official source document. Where two stories reported the same attachment, we kept the earlier one.

The entity is the company the ED named or the scheme as the story describes it, never a person. "Attachment" means a provisional attachment only. "Prosecution complaint" includes supplementary complaints. "Attachment and complaint" means one story reported both. The amount is the figure in the story's headline or summary: the attached value for an attachment, and the sum the ED alleges for a complaint. Where a story does not name a state, the table says "Not stated". Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Limits

As with every count of this kind, this counts only actions Oquilia reported, not every action taken. Cases are counted by the date Oquilia published the story, not the date of the ED's action. Attachments and complaints can be changed, confirmed or set aside later, and outcomes can change on appeal. Figures are those the stories state, not amounts recovered or paid, and attached values and alleged sums measure different things. A set of 23 is too small to rank any agency office, state or entity. Oquilia has not reviewed the merits of any case.