ED names 139 accused in Adarsh Credit Co-operative PMLA case

What the Record Shows

The Enforcement Directorate has filed a prosecution complaint and a supplementary complaint against 139 accused in the Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. (ACCSL) matter before the Special PMLA Court at Jaipur, alleging offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Per the ED's own record, the agency identified proceeds of crime of Rs 3,830.06 crore said to have been acquired by the society's promoters, their family members, associates and connected companies, firms and limited liability partnerships.

The society's promoters, Mukesh Modi and Rahul Modi, were arrested by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), and both remain among the office-bearers named in the ED prosecution complaint. In successive tranches, the ED provisionally attached assets it alleges represent proceeds of crime: attachments reported at Rs 1,489 crore, a further Rs 365.94 crore in June 2021, and Rs 135.06 crore in December 2024, alongside roughly Rs 2,176 crore attached under four earlier orders.

The scale of the attached estate has since grown well beyond those figures through the parallel liquidation process. Per the Supreme Court's order dated 13 January 2026 in Rahul Modi vs State of Rajasthan, properties valued at more than Rs 10,000 crore stood attached in connection with the matter. No court has convicted any of the accused; the SFIO arrests and the ED prosecution complaint are investigation- and prosecution-stage steps, not findings of guilt.

How It Worked

The mechanism, as the enforcement agencies describe it, turned on deposits gathered from members of a multi-state credit co-operative society. The ED alleges that money collected from members was routed as loans to entities connected with the promoter family and then converted into immovable property held through a web of companies, firms and LLPs. On this account, deposits meant to sit as member savings were, per the ED, layered through related parties and parked in real estate rather than deployed in the ordinary business of a credit society.

ACCSL operated across several states, with its heaviest footprint in Rajasthan and Gujarat. The procedural history runs on more than one track. The SFIO, which investigates corporate affairs under the Companies Act, arrested the founder and a co-promoter and pursued the corporate-fraud limb. The ED, working under the PMLA, registered its own case, carried out attachments in successive orders from 2019 onwards, and then filed a prosecution complaint followed by a supplementary complaint naming 139 accused before the Special PMLA Court, Jaipur. A liquidator was appointed to the society, and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the Rajasthan Police Special Operations Group have run connected proceedings.

Per the Rajasthan High Court's judgment dated 9 July 2026 in Santosh Bohra vs Union of India, the various strands were consolidated, with the court noting that the liquidator, H.S. Patel (IAS, retired), had attached properties valued at more than Rs 10,000 crore under the apex court's January 2026 order. The court cited the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Indian Penal Code as the statutes in play. None of these steps amounts to a trial verdict; the allegations are yet to be tested and proven in court.

Who Lost Money

The people at the centre of the matter are the depositors and members of a multi-state credit co-operative, largely in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Per the record before the Rajasthan High Court on 9 July 2026, the matter concerns nearly 20 lakh investors across the country, with investor claims documented at approximately Rs 7,600 crore as of January 2026. These are figures drawn from the court and liquidation record; the ED's own proceeds-of-crime estimate stands separately at Rs 3,830.06 crore.

Crucially, a credit co-operative society is not a bank, and member deposits here carried no Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) cover. That distinction matters for recovery: there is no insurance backstop of up to Rs 5 lakh per depositor of the kind that applies to scheduled banks. Recovery instead depends entirely on how much of the attached and liquidated estate can be realised and distributed.

Despite attachments now exceeding Rs 10,000 crore on paper, affected members report having received no restitution so far. Attached property is frozen, not yet sold or distributed, and the value on an attachment order is a claimed figure rather than cash in hand. Until confirmation, realisation and a court-supervised distribution run their course, the gap between the headline attachment total and money actually returned to members remains wide.

Where It Stands Now

As of today the matter is pending, with no conviction recorded. Per the Supreme Court's order of 13 January 2026, the petitioners, described as office-bearers of ACCSL, have been incarcerated since 2018, some on interim bail extended by the High Court, and they sought relief on the attached properties to enable repayment to investors. The apex court did not rule on the merits; it impleaded the Directorate of Enforcement as a respondent, directed the ED to file a counter-affidavit detailing the attached properties, and listed the matter for 4 February 2026.

On the High Court side, per the judgment dated 9 July 2026, connected petitions were consolidated and posted for 27 July 2026, with the court imposing status quo on the properties while liquidation continues. The ED prosecution complaint and supplementary complaint against the 139 accused await trial before the Special PMLA Court, Jaipur.

A prosecution complaint, like a chargesheet or a provisional attachment, contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Where the figures cited by different agencies diverge, this report uses the ED's own Rs 3,830.06 crore proceeds-of-crime figure and attributes the larger investor-claim and attachment numbers to the specific court records in which they appear.

What It Means

The Adarsh matter is a study in the difference between a credit co-operative and a bank. Members of a society do not enjoy DICGC deposit insurance, and the recovery that follows a collapse runs through attachment, liquidation and court-supervised distribution rather than a quick insurance payout. Anyone weighing where to keep savings can check, before depositing, whether an institution is a scheduled bank covered by DICGC or a co-operative society outside that net, and can verify a society's registration and audited standing with the relevant Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

The case also shows how slowly value moves from an attachment order to a depositor's hands. An attachment freezes assets and signals scale, but it is not a cheque. Between provisional attachment, confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority, appeals, liquidation and distribution, years can pass, and the amount finally realised often trails the attached value. For members watching a headline figure in the thousands of crores, that lag is the practical reality of recovery.

For readers comparing the promised returns of any deposit scheme against a plain, insured alternative, a simple fixed-deposit calculation is a useful yardstick, and our wider enforcement archive tracks how these co-operative and PMLA matters actually resolve over time.

FAQ

Does the ED complaint mean the people named are guilty?

No. A prosecution complaint, a chargesheet or a provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt. The 139 accused named by the ED, including the promoters arrested by the SFIO, are presumed innocent until proven guilty by the trial court, and due process continues. No conviction has been recorded in the ACCSL matter.

What exactly has the ED done in this case?

Per its own record, the ED identified proceeds of crime of Rs 3,830.06 crore, provisionally attached assets in successive orders (including Rs 1,489 crore, Rs 365.94 crore in June 2021 and Rs 135.06 crore in December 2024), and filed a prosecution complaint and a supplementary complaint against 139 accused before the Special PMLA Court, Jaipur, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Have the depositors got their money back?

Not so far. Per the court record, investor claims of about Rs 7,600 crore affect nearly 20 lakh investors, and properties worth more than Rs 10,000 crore stand attached. But attached property is frozen rather than realised, the society carried no DICGC cover, and members report no restitution to date pending liquidation and distribution.

What did the Supreme Court decide on 13 January 2026?

It did not rule on guilt. Per the order in Rahul Modi vs State of Rajasthan, the court impleaded the Directorate of Enforcement as a respondent, directed it to file a counter-affidavit detailing the attached properties, and listed the matter for 4 February 2026. The petitioners had sought relief on the attached assets to enable repayment to investors.

How can I check whether a deposit-taking institution is safe?

Verify whether it is a scheduled bank covered by DICGC insurance (up to Rs 5 lakh per depositor) or a co-operative society outside that cover, and confirm its registration and audited status with the relevant Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the RBI, as applicable, before you deposit.

Where can I read the official record?

The Supreme Court's order of 13 January 2026 and the Rajasthan High Court judgment of 9 July 2026 are both reproduced on Indian Kanoon and are linked below.

This report is based on the Supreme Court order dated 13 January 2026 in Rahul Modi vs State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 9 July 2026 in Santosh Bohra vs Union of India, reviewed on 1 August 2026.