ED files PMLA complaint against Ashok Kharat, attaches Rs 36.9 crore

The Enforcement Action

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Mumbai Zonal Office, has filed a prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, before the Special Court (PMLA) in Mumbai against Ashokkumar Eknath Kharat and five others, according to an ED press release dated 18 July 2026. Per the release, the complaint was filed on 17 July 2026 for the offence of money-laundering under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The others named include Kalpana Kharat, described in the release as Kharat's wife, and four further accused.

The action follows a set of asset measures the agency records in the same release. On 15 July 2026 the ED provisionally attached immovable properties worth Rs 19.20 crore under Section 5 of the PMLA, held in the names of the accused and his family members. That is in addition to assets worth Rs 17.70 crore that the release says were seized or frozen during searches conducted under Section 17 of the PMLA at multiple premises, bank lockers and vehicles during April and May 2026. In total, the ED states that assets worth approximately Rs 36.90 crore have been attached, seized or frozen in the case to date.

The ED had earlier arrested Ashokkumar Eknath Kharat on 19 May 2026 under Section 19 of the PMLA, and, per the release, he continues to be in judicial custody. Kharat has not publicly responded to the prosecution complaint, and the accused are entitled to contest the allegations before the court. A provisional attachment and a prosecution complaint are investigation and prosecution-stage steps, not findings of guilt.

How the Scheme Worked

The ED's account of the matter, as set out in its release, begins with the predicate offences. The agency says it initiated its investigation on the basis of multiple FIRs registered by the Sarkar Wada, Shirdi, Sinnar and Rahata police stations in Maharashtra. Those FIRs form the underlying scheduled offences that give the ED jurisdiction to investigate the alleged laundering of any proceeds.

According to the release, the ED alleges that Kharat "exploited the religious faith of devotees" and dishonestly induced them to part with money and properties under the pretext of performing "Avatar Poojas", curing illnesses, averting misfortune and ensuring business prosperity. The agency alleges this conduct generated proceeds of crime through extortion, cheating and criminal intimidation. The release further states that Kharat falsely projected himself as possessing divine powers and as "an incarnation of Lord Shiva" to deceive devotees. These remain allegations the ED must prove.

On the laundering mechanism, the release is specific. The ED alleges that Kharat laundered the proceeds of crime through two cooperative credit societies, fraudulently operating multiple accounts "in connivance with an employee", and through multiple benami accounts used for large cash deposits and subsequent withdrawals, including maturity proceeds. In other words, the agency's case is that a layer of ostensibly ordinary savings-society accounts was used to move and disguise cash.

The laundered funds, the ED alleges, were then either retained with trusted associates or invested in immovable properties across Nashik, Ahmednagar, Solapur, Pune and Mumbai in the names of family members. That placement of value in real estate held by relatives is what the attachment and seizure measures are said to target. The chronology the release describes runs from searches in April and May 2026, to Kharat's arrest on 19 May 2026, to the provisional attachment on 15 July 2026, and then to the prosecution complaint on 17 July 2026.

The Law Invoked

The statutory provisions in the ED's release are all drawn from the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Section 3 defines the offence of money-laundering, which covers involvement in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, including its concealment, possession, acquisition or projection as untainted property. Section 4 prescribes the punishment for that offence, which is rigorous imprisonment of three to seven years and a fine.

The asset measures rest on two further provisions. Section 5 governs provisional attachment of property believed to be proceeds of crime, the power the ED used on 15 July 2026 for the Rs 19.20 crore of immovable property. Section 17 governs search and seizure, cited for the Rs 17.70 crore seized or frozen during the April and May 2026 searches. The arrest on 19 May 2026 was made under Section 19, which sets out the ED's power to arrest and the safeguards around it.

Because the ED's jurisdiction under the PMLA is triggered by a predicate or scheduled offence, the release ties its case to the FIRs registered by the four Maharashtra police stations. The specific penal sections in those FIRs are a matter for the state police record rather than the ED release, and are not reproduced here.

What Happens Next

A prosecution complaint is the PMLA equivalent of a chargesheet. The next step is for the Special Court (PMLA) in Mumbai to decide whether to take cognizance of the complaint. If it does, the matter proceeds to framing of charges and trial, at which the ED must prove its allegations to the criminal standard. The accused can seek discharge, apply for bail and contest the evidence.

The asset measures follow a separate track. A provisional attachment under Section 5 is not final: it must be placed before the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, which decides within a statutory period whether to confirm it. A party whose property is attached can contest confirmation and, if aggrieved, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA and onward to the High Court. Until those stages conclude, the attachment secures the property but does not transfer ownership or establish guilt.

At this stage everything the ED has recorded remains an allegation to be tested through due process. The presumption of innocence applies, and the outcome will be decided by the court, not by the investigating agency.

What It Means

For ordinary depositors, the detail that stands out is the alleged use of two cooperative credit societies as conduits. Cooperative credit societies are member-run bodies that take deposits and lend, and they sit under a lighter supervisory regime than commercial banks. The ED's allegation that accounts there were operated "in connivance with an employee" is a reminder that the safeguards at smaller institutions depend heavily on internal controls that can be circumvented.

The practical takeaway is not to avoid cooperatives, but to apply the same checks investors are urged to use everywhere. Verify that a society is registered and that any scheme promising outsized or spiritual returns is offered by an entity actually authorised to take public money. Regulated investments and advisers can be checked against SEBI and RBI registers; where a promoter mixes claimed religious authority with money collection, treat the promised return, not the promise, as the test. Attachments of this kind can also matter directly to devotees or investors who parted with money, because attached assets may eventually feature in restitution once proceedings conclude.

More broadly, the case illustrates a documented pattern the ED pursues under the PMLA: proceeds generated by an alleged cheating or extortion offence, layered through low-scrutiny financial channels, and parked in real estate held by relatives. Recognising that shape is the most durable protection an ordinary saver has.

FAQ

Does the ED complaint mean the people named are guilty?

No. As the ED itself is at the prosecution stage, a prosecution complaint (like a chargesheet) and a provisional attachment contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The Special Court (PMLA) in Mumbai has yet to test the ED's evidence, and any attachment must still be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority before it takes final effect.

What exactly did the ED do?

Per its release dated 18 July 2026, the ED's Mumbai Zonal Office filed a prosecution complaint on 17 July 2026 under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA against Ashokkumar Eknath Kharat and five others. It separately attached immovable property worth Rs 19.20 crore and seized or froze a further Rs 17.70 crore, taking the total to about Rs 36.90 crore.

Can these actions be challenged?

Yes. The accused can contest the prosecution complaint at trial and seek bail. On the asset side, a Section 5 provisional attachment must be confirmed by the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, and a party can appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. These are standard appellate routes provided under the Act.

How can I check whether an investment scheme is legitimate?

Confirm the entity is registered for the activity it is carrying out. Deposit-taking cooperative societies are registered under cooperative law; investment products and advisers should appear on SEBI or RBI registers. Be wary where money collection is bundled with claims of spiritual power, guaranteed cures or assured prosperity, none of which is a lawful basis for taking public funds.

Where can I read the official record?

The Directorate of Enforcement published a press release dated 18 July 2026 setting out the prosecution complaint, the attachment and seizure figures, and the sections invoked. It is available on the ED's official website and is linked at the end of this report.

This report is based on the official ED press release dated 18 July 2026. It was surfaced via coverage aggregated on Google News.