The ED has registered a money laundering case against Essel Group chairman and Zee founder Subhash Chandra in connection with an alleged ₹1,322 crore loan fraud at LIC Housing Finance Limited (LICHFL). The CBI had filed First Information Report (FIR) over allegations that loans were sanctioned using inflated net-worth certificates.
The ED has taken cognisance of the CBI investigation and registered a case under PMLA, officials said. The case pertains to two loan facilities of ₹980 crore sanctioned in 2018 to companies of Essel Group.
LIC Housing Finance says the loans were secured by financial documents which grossly inflated Chandra’s personal net worth. Both loan accounts defaulted and the lender claims its wrongful loss is about ₹1,322.39 crore.
What Is the ₹1,322 Crore Loan Fraud Case?
The CBI registered an FIR on 31 August 2026 following a complaint by LIC Housing Finance. The complaint relates to two loan facilities given to four companies of Essel Group.
🚨 ED opens money laundering probe against Subhash Chandra in Rs 1,322 crore loan case https://t.co/4mJLmKYFEH
— India Live (@IndiaLiveIN) November 2, 2026
The first facility was a loan of ₹500 crore to Vasant Sagar Properties Private Limited with Pan India Infra Projects Private Limited as co-borrower.
The second facility was ₹480 crore for Digital Subscriber Management and Consultancy Services Private Limited as borrower, Spirit Infra Power and Multi Ventures Private Limited as co-borrower.
In the lender’s complaint both facilities were backed by personal guarantees and net-worth certificates submitted by Subhash Chandra.
Allegations of Inflated Net Worth Certificates
One of the main allegations in the case is that two net-worth certificates were submitted in 2018.
A certificate issued on March 28, 2018 said Chandra’s net worth was around ₹59,113 crore as on March 31, 2017. Another certificate dated July 6, 2018 put his net worth at ₹40,562 crore.
LIC Housing Finance has alleged that these certificates had inflated financial information and were used to get approval and disbursal of the loans.
The CBI FIR also refers to Chandra’s statements during subsequent personal insolvency proceedings. The complaint says that he denied the net worth figures mentioned in the certificates. He reportedly said his net worth in 2024 was ₹31.79 crore and his net worth during 2017-18 was not more than ₹40,000 crore.
The CBI is probing allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of loan funds. The allegations have not been established in court yet.
ED Investigation and CBI Case
The ED will probe the money laundering angle in loan transactions. The agency is expected to look into movement and diversion of funds involved in the case.
CBI FIR names Subhash Chandra, borrower companies their directors and other persons. It mentions possible involvement of unidentified public servants and others also.
An Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) is an internal document used by ED to start a money laundering investigation. Its registration does not establish the guilt of the persons named in the investigation.
Zee Entertainment Clarifies Its Position
After reports of ED probe Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited said that case pertains to Subhash Chandra in his personal capacity as well as certain promoter companies.
The company said the matter has nothing to do with Zee Entertainment or its business operations.
The clarification is important because Chandra is part of Essel Group and founded Zee one of India’s biggest media and entertainment companies.
Separate Insolvency Proceedings
The loan probe is also taking place against the backdrop of separate personal insolvency proceedings involving Subhash Chandra.
LIC Housing Finance was one of the lenders who challenged repayment plan approved by NCLT. The plan reportedly allowed creditors to recover about ₹6.25 crore out of admitted claims amounting to around ₹22,006 crore.
A five-member NCLT bench stayed the approval order later.
The ED’s money laundering investigation and insolvency proceedings are two different legal processes. The outcome of the investigation will depend on what evidence agencies gather and the legal process that follows.
Comments