The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered a case against businessman Anil Ambani and Reliance Capital Ltd (RCL) over an alleged ₹1,816.22-crore loss to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), bringing another major financial investigation involving the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group into focus.
The FIR, registered in Mumbai, names Reliance Capital, its former chairman Anil Ambani, unidentified public servants and other unknown persons. The CBI has alleged offences including criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct. The agency said the investigation will examine the role of everyone involved and trace where the money invested by EPFO ultimately went.
At the heart of the case is an investment made more than a decade ago. According to the CBI, EPFO invested ₹2,500 crore in secured non-convertible debentures (NCDs) issued by Reliance Capital during 2013 and 2014. The investment was made through four portfolio managers, including Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd.
The debentures were scheduled to mature in 2023 and 2024. However, Reliance Capital subsequently defaulted on repayment. The CBI’s case is that fraudulent transactions and alleged diversion of funds contributed to the default, leaving EPFO with a substantial unpaid amount.
The agency has put the alleged wrongful loss at ₹1,007.55 crore, with a further ₹808.67 crore in interest liability, taking the total alleged loss to ₹1,816.22 crore.
The case originated with a complaint from EPFO, which manages retirement savings under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, Pension Scheme and Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme. The organisation’s funds are held and managed by its Central Board of Trustees for the benefit of its subscribers.
The latest CBI action follows findings shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) with EPFO as part of a separate investigation into Reliance Capital. Based on those findings, EPFO approached the CBI with allegations concerning transactions carried out during the period when the company’s financial position was deteriorating.
Reliance Capital’s financial troubles became increasingly visible from 2019, and the company later entered the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The repayment of EPFO’s dues subsequently became part of the insolvency proceedings.
In 2021, EPFO filed its claim before the resolution professional. Following approval of the resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in 2024, EPFO received around ₹1,492 crore against its dues.
However, a significant amount remained unpaid. The outstanding principal was about ₹1,007 crore, while interest of roughly ₹809 crore was also pending, according to the Times of India report.
The CBI is now examining whether the eventual default was simply the result of Reliance Capital’s financial difficulties or whether criminal acts contributed to the loss.
A key part of the investigation will be determining how the money raised through the NCDs was used. The agency said it will trace the end use of the invested funds and investigate the alleged conspiracy involving both private individuals and public servants.
Anil Ambani has denied any wrongdoing. A spokesperson for the businessman said the FIR relates to Reliance Capital and pointed out that Ambani had served as a non-executive director and chairman of the company’s board from 2005 until November 2021.
The spokesperson also noted that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) superseded Reliance Capital’s board in November 2021 and appointed an administrator. Ambani, the spokesperson said, denies any wrongdoing and reserves all legal rights available to him.
The latest case adds to a series of investigations involving companies linked to the Anil Ambani group.
The CBI has previously registered cases involving Reliance Communications, Reliance Home Finance, Reliance Commercial Finance and Reliance Telecom, based on complaints from public sector banks and LIC. According to the agency, it has so far filed four chargesheets and arrested seven people in cases involving Reliance ADA Group companies.
The broader investigations have also attracted the attention of the Enforcement Directorate. In March, the ED said its investigation into Reliance Home Finance and Reliance Commercial Finance had uncovered alleged diversion of public funds through various group and intermediary entities. In July, the agency continued searches linked to the investigation and said it had seized documents and other material relating to suspected transactions and assets.
However, the EPFO investment fraud case is separate and focuses specifically on Reliance Capital’s NCDs and the alleged loss suffered by the retirement fund organisation.
For EPFO subscribers, the case is significant because it concerns money held for employees’ retirement and social-security benefits. The ₹2,500-crore investment was made years before Reliance Capital’s eventual financial collapse, but the repayment dispute has continued through insolvency proceedings and now a criminal investigation.
The CBI has not yet established guilt against the accused. Its FIR represents the beginning of the investigation, during which the agency will examine financial records, transactions, the role of company officials and the involvement, if any, of public servants.
The immediate focus will be on tracing the ₹2,500-crore EPFO investment, understanding how the funds were deployed and determining how the unpaid amount accumulated.
The investigation also comes at a time when authorities are pursuing several cases connected to the financial affairs of companies associated with Anil Ambani. The CBI said the Reliance-related investigations are being monitored by the Supreme Court and that it remains committed to conducting a comprehensive investigation.
For now, the central question is whether the EPFO loss was the result of a failed investment that followed Reliance Capital’s financial decline, or whether, as alleged by investigators, transactions and fund movements played a deliberate role in the eventual default. The CBI’s investigation is expected to shed more light on that question.