3 of 28 ED actions made up most of Rs 4,584.88 crore; the median case was Rs 30.94 crore

The Enforcement Directorate's actions under the money-laundering law vary hugely in size. Across 28 attachments and prosecution complaints reported between 12 October 2026 and 11 November 2026, the amounts the ED put on record came to Rs 4,584.88 crore. The median case was only Rs 30.94 crore. The 3 largest cases made up most of the total, and the 2 largest involved money the ED says came from homebuyers and investors.

What we found

Each case in the table carries one figure, the amount the story leads with, per the ED. For an attachment that is the value of the property the ED provisionally attached. For a prosecution complaint it is the amount the ED alleges in the complaint. For the 2 cases with both, it is the value attached. These are figures the ED states, not amounts proved in court or returned to anyone.

The spread is wide. The smallest figure was Rs 1.66 crore, the largest Rs 1,353.26 crore. Half the cases were at or below the median of Rs 30.94 crore. The 3 largest - Raheja Developers at Rs 1,353.26 crore, Nexa Evergreen at Rs 932.54 crore, and Reliance Communications and RHFL at Rs 510 crore - together account for more than half of the Rs 4,584.88 crore total.

The 2 largest figures both concern money the public handed over. The ED filed a prosecution complaint against Raheja Developers, alleging that Rs 1,353.26 crore of the Rs 2,699.13 crore collected from about 4,600 buyers in projects in Delhi and Gurugram is proceeds of crime; the story adds that the ED has attached properties with a book value of Rs 810.57 crore and that the charges will be tested at trial. In the Nexa Evergreen case, the ED alleges in a complaint filed in a Jaipur PMLA court that 47,664 investors got back Rs 932.54 crore less than they put in.

Deposit and investment schemes recur below the top of the table too. The ED attached Rs 427.16 crore in the Shivam Associates case, where it alleges Rs 2,459.49 crore was collected from more than 35,000 investors on promises of 3% a month. It attached Rs 85.19 crore in the Dream Makers Global case, where it alleges depositors were promised doubled money in 150 days. In the Hashpe case the ED filed a complaint and attached Rs 14.16 crore, alleging a crypto scheme that promised 1% daily returns. Near Jaipur it attached land worth Rs 1.66 crore, which it says represents money from schemes promising 2-3% monthly returns. In the Ocean Seven Buildtech case it attached Rs 136.42 crore, alleging plot buyers' money in Rajasthan projects was diverted.

Bank loans are the other thread. The ED attached Rs 510 crore in the Reliance Communications and RHFL bank fraud cases, Rs 85.20 crore of Kolkata land in the Unity Infraprojects case, Rs 53.95 crore in the Parekh Aluminex case, Rs 40.40 crore in its DHFL probe and Rs 18.33 crore in the Kallam Modern Rice Mills case. According to the ED, the Kallam group used forged title deeds to get SBI credit. In the New India Co-operative Bank case, the ED filed a complaint alleging embezzlement of about Rs 122 crore.

By kind of action, 18 of the 28 cases were attachments alone (64%), with attached property of Rs 1,993.06 crore. 8 were prosecution complaints alone (29%), alleging Rs 2,545.96 crore. 2 were both (7%), at Rs 45.86 crore. So the 8 complaints carried more money than the 18 attachments, mostly because of the Raheja Developers and Nexa Evergreen complaints.

Only one scheme appears twice. In the Marriage Assistance Scheme case in Madhya Pradesh, the ED first attached Rs 5.37 crore and then filed a complaint alleging Rs 30.18 crore was approved and paid in 5,923 suspicious cases. Each other company or scheme appears once, so no single company dominates the count.

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 before it holds.

What it means for you

The largest amounts in this table come from people who paid for flats, plots or promised returns. When the ED attaches property in such a case, the money does not come back on its own. The stories note that an attachment is only provisional until it is confirmed, and that the charges in a complaint are tested at trial.

If you have lost money to an online investment, trading or betting scheme, or to a caller posing as an official, you can report it on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal at cybercrime.gov.in, or call the helpline 1930.

If someone is collecting deposits from the public on promised returns and you are not sure they are allowed to, you can check or report them on RBI's Sachet portal, which takes complaints about unauthorised deposit schemes.

How we counted

Oquilia counted 28 stories it published between 12 October 2026 and 11 November 2026 on a provisional attachment order the ED issued, or a prosecution complaint it filed, under the PMLA. We searched Oquilia's enforcement archive for "Enforcement Directorate", "attach" and "prosecution complaint", and read every story the searches returned.

A story counted only if it reported one ED attachment or complaint and was written from an official source document. We left out stories about searches, arrests, custody or frozen accounts alone, a court conviction, a High Court order on the sale of attached assets, the return of money to investors, and SEBI recovery attachments, which are a different process. We left out one story that rested on no official source document, and one complaint whose only party was an individual employee. Where Oquilia reported an attachment and a later complaint in the same matter as separate actions, each counts once.

"Attachment" means a provisional attachment order. "Prosecution complaint" means a complaint, including a supplementary one, filed before a special PMLA court. "Attachment and complaint" means the story reported both at once. The entity is the company the ED named, or the scheme as the story describes it; no individual is named. The state is given only where the story names it; otherwise the table says "Not stated". Every case stated an amount. 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. The figures are those the stories state, per the ED, not amounts confirmed, recovered or paid back, and an attachment value and an alleged amount are not the same thing. A provisional attachment can be set aside, and a complaint can end in acquittal. The set is too small to rank anyone. Oquilia has not reviewed the merits of any case.