ED's fugitive-offender plea against Jatin Mehta still pending in Mumbai

What the Record Shows

More than seven years after the first criminal case was registered, the Enforcement Directorate's application to have Jatin Mehta declared a Fugitive Economic Offender remains pending before a Special Court in Mumbai. The agency moved the application in 2019 under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, and the court has yet to rule on it. Mehta, described in agency filings as the promoter of the Su-Raj Group of companies, has not been convicted of any offence, and no extradition has been secured.

Mehta is named as the principal accused in the Central Bureau of Investigation's cases arising from the collapse of two group firms, Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery Ltd and Forever Precious Jewellery and Diamonds Ltd. In one of the matters, the Bombay High Court recorded in a bail order dated 15 November 2022 that the CBI alleges a criminal conspiracy running from 2009 to 2013 under which Canara Bank "was misled in the matter of sanction and disbursal of working capital by misrepresentation". That single case concerns a sum of about Rs 150 crore; across the wider consortium of lenders the agencies put the alleged exposure at more than Rs 6,800 crore.

The Enforcement Directorate is separately understood to be examining a further application under the same Act against Mehta's wife and two sons, on the basis of material gathered by the CBI, according to press reporting. That contemplated application has not been filed as a finding against any of them, and none of the family members has been declared an offender.

A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

How It Worked

The mechanism the agencies describe centres on standby letters of credit, an instrument banks issue to guarantee payment. According to the CBI's case as summarised in court records, Indian banks issued these letters of credit to support bullion imports by the group companies. When overseas buyers of the finished jewellery defaulted, the letters of credit devolved on the Indian banks, which were left to meet the liabilities. The CBI alleges the underlying transactions were engineered rather than genuine trade.

In the Canara Bank matter, the High Court noted the CBI's allegation that working-capital facilities were obtained through misrepresented turnover, and that purchase orders were arranged from companies in the United Arab Emirates connected to the group. The court recorded that the first information report in that case was registered on 24 June 2016 and that a chargesheet naming 22 accused was filed on 7 June 2018, with the principal accused shown as absconding. The provisions invoked included Sections 120B, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The procedural chronology across the group cases, as reported, runs from the 2013 payment defaults through a series of CBI registrations and chargesheets and parallel Enforcement Directorate proceedings under the money-laundering law. The agencies allege that funds were routed through entities in the United Arab Emirates. None of these characterisations has been tested at trial in respect of Mehta himself, who left India before the cases matured.

The cross-border element is a matter of citizenship and residence record. Mehta and his family are reported to have moved first to the UAE and subsequently to have taken citizenship of St Kitts and Nevis, a jurisdiction with which India has no extradition treaty, and to be resident in London. That route, rather than any tested finding, is what has kept the FEO application unresolved: the Act is designed precisely for accused persons who remain outside the reach of Indian courts.

Who Lost Money

The parties said to have borne the loss are a consortium of Indian banks. Reporting on the agencies' case names Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank and Central Bank of India among the lenders exposed, alongside Standard Chartered Bank in the bullion-financing chain. The Canara Bank case documented by the High Court concerns roughly Rs 150 crore; the agencies' aggregate figure across the group is put at more than Rs 6,800 crore, a number that reflects alleged exposure rather than a judicially determined loss.

Recovery has been limited. With the principal accused outside the country and the FEO application still pending, no confiscation of assets under the Act has been completed against Mehta, and the criminal trials in India have proceeded without him. What the banks have recovered to date has come through their own resolution and write-off processes rather than through the enforcement action, and the bulk of the claimed sum remains unrecovered on the public record.

Because the matter is at the investigation and trial stage rather than adjudicated, the sums described here are those the agencies allege. No court has yet quantified a proven loss attributable to Mehta.

Where It Stands Now

As of today, the position is unchanged in substance from the agency filings but the case has continued to move procedurally. The 2019 FEO application against Jatin Mehta remains pending before the Special Court in Mumbai; a court in October 2026 declined his request to appear virtually, according to press reporting, keeping the question of his personal appearance live. He has not been convicted, and he does not feature among the 15 individuals declared Fugitive Economic Offenders that the government listed in the Lok Sabha on 1 December 2025.

The Enforcement Directorate's consideration of a fresh FEO application against Mehta's wife and sons is, on the record, at the stage of examination of CBI material. No such application against the family members has been adjudicated, and describing them as offenders would be inaccurate at this stage.

A chargesheet or an FEO application contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The trials of co-accused who remained in India have advanced separately, with some granted bail and some discharged, as the 2022 High Court order records.

What It Means

The Mehta matter illustrates what the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act can and cannot do. The Act allows a court to declare a person a fugitive offender and to order confiscation of assets where an accused named in a scheduled offence has left India and refuses to return. But a declaration still requires the court to be satisfied, and where the person has acquired citizenship of a country without an extradition arrangement, the practical distance between an application and an enforceable outcome can stretch across years, as this case shows.

For depositors and bank customers, the more useful takeaway is structural. Standby letters of credit and buyer's credit are legitimate trade-finance tools; the alleged misuse here turned on whether the underlying trade was real. The public record of enforcement in this category is worth following through the official channels rather than headline figures, since alleged exposure and recovered sums are very different numbers. Readers can track the enforcement archive at /news?cat=enforcement, and the pattern of cross-border cases in the Nehal Modi extradition matter and the ED searches on the Surana Group shows how these investigations typically unfold before any finding is reached.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. An FEO application and the CBI chargesheets contain allegations, not findings of guilt. Jatin Mehta has not been convicted, and the ED's contemplated application against his family members has not been filed as a finding against anyone. The accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

What exactly has the ED applied for?

The Enforcement Directorate applied in 2019 to have Jatin Mehta declared a Fugitive Economic Offender under the 2018 Act, which would allow a court to order confiscation of his assets. That application is still being heard by a Special Court in Mumbai and has not been decided.

Has Jatin Mehta been declared a fugitive economic offender?

No. He is not among the 15 individuals the government listed as declared Fugitive Economic Offenders in the Lok Sabha on 1 December 2025. The application against him remains pending.

How much money is involved?

The Canara Bank case documented by the Bombay High Court concerns about Rs 150 crore. Across the wider group of lenders, the agencies allege exposure of more than Rs 6,800 crore. That aggregate is an alleged figure, not a judicially determined loss.

Have the banks recovered their money?

Largely not through the enforcement action. With the principal accused abroad and the FEO application unresolved, no confiscation under the Act has been completed against Mehta, and most of the claimed sum remains unrecovered on the public record.

Where can I read the official record?

The Bombay High Court's bail order of 15 November 2022, which sets out the CBI's allegations and the procedural history, is available on Indian Kanoon.

This report is based on the order of the Bombay High Court dated 15 November 2022 in Bail Application No. 4417 of 2021 and on subsequent reporting of the Enforcement Directorate's pending Fugitive Economic Offenders Act application, reviewed on 3 August 2026.