ED files PMLA prosecution complaint against ex-minister Sujit Bose

The Enforcement Action

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Kolkata Zonal Office, has filed a supplementary prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 against Sujit Bose, described in the agency's record as a former minister in the West Bengal Department of Fire and Emergency Services and a former MLA, along with Samudra Bose, Jyotishman Chattopadhyay, IAS (then Director of the Directorate of Local Bodies) and others. According to the ED, the complaint was filed before the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Kolkata on 9 July 2026, and the agency announced it in a press release dated 11 July 2026.

The matter, which the ED refers to as the Municipality Recruitment Scam, concerns alleged illegal appointments in South Dumdum Municipality and the routing of the money said to have changed hands. A prosecution complaint is the PMLA equivalent of a chargesheet: it sets out the agency's allegations for a court to test, and is not a finding of guilt.

Per the ED, Sujit Bose was arrested under section 19(1) of the PMLA on 11 May 2026 and granted ten days of ED custody; the agency states he is currently in judicial custody. The ED says it had earlier filed a prosecution complaint in the same case against one Ayan Sil before the Special Court (PMLA), Kolkata on 24 February 2025, and that further investigation is in progress. There is no public response from Sujit Bose to the latest complaint on the official record; his defence, and that of the other accused, will be tested at trial.

How the Scheme Worked

The ED says its investigation began on the basis of an FIR registered by the CBI, which the agency states followed directions issued by the Calcutta High Court, recorded in the complaint as CAN 2 of 2023 in WPA 9979 of 2022, read with CAN 1 of 2023, in the matter of Soumen Nandy. That reference concerns alleged illegalities in the recruitment of various posts in municipalities across West Bengal.

According to the ED, its money-laundering investigation "unearthed" that Sujit Bose, described as the erstwhile Vice-Chairman of South Dumdum Municipality, recommended 340 candidates for what the agency calls illegal appointment, of whom 284 secured posts. Information supplied by the municipality, the ED says, showed it recruited 343 candidates between 2014 and 2022.

The alleged laundering mechanism, as the complaint describes it, ran through a cash-heavy hospitality business. The ED alleges the proceeds of crime received from "undeserving candidates" were initially infused into Bose's proprietorship concern, a restaurant, by projecting the money as legitimate cash sales "despite its limited business operations". The agency states that large cash deposits were made into bank accounts "even during the covid lockdown period", a time when such a business would ordinarily have seen little footfall.

From there, the ED alleges, funds drawn from the restaurant were used to finance and expand other hospitality entities, named in the complaint as M/s Shree Venkatesh Banquets Pvt Ltd and M/s Speciality Dhaba LLP, through capital contributions and unsecured loans. Money for acquiring properties, the agency says, was arranged through borrowings from various shell companies and individuals, later repaid by routing proceeds of crime through "inflated and bogus cash sales" of the hospitality businesses. The ED further alleges Bose was the beneficiary of direct proceeds of crime in the form of multiple flats given in lieu of ensuring jobs.

On the role of the named IAS officer, the ED alleges that Jyotishman Chattopadhyay, while functioning as Director of the Directorate of Local Bodies, "abused his official position and statutory authority" to facilitate and regularise appointments in violation of recruitment procedure, and approved an additional 29 appointments in South Dumdum Municipality as a "special case" despite the absence of mandatory documents. Each of these remains an allegation to be proven.

The Law Invoked

The action sits under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the statute the ED enforces. The core offence the Act targets is money laundering: dealing with the proceeds of crime, that is, property derived from a scheduled (predicate) offence, and projecting it as untainted. The ED's power to file a prosecution complaint flows from this framework, and the case is heard by a designated Special Court.

The one PMLA provision the ED's release cites by number is section 19(1), the power under which the agency says it arrested Sujit Bose on 11 May 2026. Section 19 governs an authorised ED officer's power to arrest a person where, on the basis of material, there is reason to believe the person is guilty of an offence under the Act, with attendant safeguards on recording reasons and informing the person of the grounds of arrest.

The predicate offence sits with the CBI's FIR, registered on the High Court's directions. Under the PMLA scheme the ED's money-laundering case runs parallel to that predicate proceeding. The agency's release does not enumerate the sections of the penal law in the underlying FIR, so those are not restated here.

What Happens Next

With the supplementary prosecution complaint filed, the City Sessions Court, Kolkata, sitting as the designated Special Court, will consider whether to take cognisance. If it does, the accused are summoned, charges are framed, and the matter proceeds to trial, where the ED must prove its allegations. The ED has stated that further investigation continues, which can lead to additional supplementary complaints.

At this stage everything the ED has set out remains an allegation. A prosecution complaint contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Bail, the framing of charges and the admissibility of the agency's material are all matters for the court.

Separately, proceeds of crime identified in a PMLA investigation can be provisionally attached and, if an Adjudicating Authority confirms the attachment, held pending trial, with appeals lying to the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA and onward to the High Court. The ED's release focuses on the complaint rather than a specific attachment figure, so no attached value is stated here.

What It Means

For most readers this case is less about one municipality than about a pattern the ED describes repeatedly: cash-intensive businesses, restaurants, bars and banquet halls, used to give unaccounted money the appearance of ordinary turnover. The tell the agency points to here, large cash deposits during the covid lockdown when footfall was minimal, is precisely the sort of anomaly that financial-intelligence systems are built to flag.

There is a practical takeaway. Ordinary savers rarely encounter laundering directly, but they do encounter its infrastructure: businesses that seem to run on implausible cash volumes, "investment" opportunities that promise to place money through connected entities, or job offers that ask for large upfront payments. The allegation at the centre of this case, jobs allegedly exchanged for money and property, is a reminder that a demand for payment in return for a public appointment is itself a warning sign, not a shortcut.

For anyone following enforcement news, the sequence here is worth understanding: a High Court direction, a CBI FIR on the predicate offence, and then a parallel ED money-laundering investigation that maps how the money moved. Each agency has a distinct role, and none of the steps so far amounts to a conviction. The value of reading the primary record is precisely that it separates what has been alleged from what has been proven.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A prosecution complaint (like a chargesheet) contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The ED must prove its case before the Special Court, and the individuals named are entitled to defend themselves and to appeal.

What exactly did the ED do?

Per its release dated 11 July 2026, the ED's Kolkata Zonal Office filed a supplementary prosecution complaint under the PMLA, 2002 before the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Kolkata on 9 July 2026, naming Sujit Bose, Samudra Bose, Jyotishman Chattopadhyay, IAS and others in connection with alleged illegal appointments in South Dumdum Municipality.

What is a PMLA prosecution complaint?

It is the ED's formal filing setting out its money-laundering allegations, analogous to a chargesheet in an ordinary criminal case, and heard by a designated Special Court. Filing it does not decide guilt; the court must take cognisance, frame charges and try the case before any question of conviction arises.

Can the accused challenge the case?

Yes. The accused can contest cognisance and the framing of charges, seek bail, and test the ED's evidence at trial. Orders attaching alleged proceeds of crime can be challenged before the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter the High Court.

Where can I read the official record?

The ED's press release dated 11 July 2026 is published on the agency's website at enforcementdirectorate.gov.in. It names the accused, the court, the arrest date and the alleged laundering mechanism, and is the primary source for this report.

This report is based on the official ED press release dated 11 July 2026. It was surfaced via enforcement-news coverage aggregated by Google News.