Mumbai, August 22, 2026: The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police has added charges of cheating, forgery and usage of forged documents against Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd (SARCL), its promoter Sudhir Valia and other associated promoters in an ongoing investigation into an alleged Rs 1,000-crore financial fraud linked to Yes Bank, according to documents submitted before a Mumbai court.
ED Dossier Examined
The additional provisions — Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — were added after the EOW examined an investigative dossier shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), along with documents, statements and digital material gathered during the ED's probe, officials said. The ED forwarded the dossier and related material to the EOW on July 29 under file number ECIR/MB20-1/39/2020. The material contained details of alleged financial irregularities, suspected diversion of funds and transactions involving entities associated with the Suraksha Group.
The development and inclusion of the upgraded penal provisions were officially communicated to the 47th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade Court on August 20.
Investigation Into Rs 1,000-Crore Transactions
The investigation centres on financial transactions involving Yes Bank, Housing Development & Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) and entities linked to the real estate group, including its sister concern, Sapphire Land Development Pvt Ltd, and Privilege Power and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (PPIPL). The transactions, estimated at around Rs 1,000 crore, are being examined for alleged financial irregularities, suspicious circular transactions and undervaluation of assets in the course of their restitution to entities linked to Suraksha Group. Following the addition of Sections of the IPC, the EOW is now also examining the alleged creation or use of forged documents in the transactions, besides probing the suspected diversion of funds and the larger conspiracy.
According to the allegations forming part of the case, PPIPL had availed a Rs 600-crore term loan from Yes Bank's Nehru Centre branch in Worli, Mumbai, in December 2012 for an affordable housing project at Kopri-Virar. The loan was secured against development rights, project receivables and immovable properties belonging to PPIPL, HDIL and its group companies. The underlying properties and project-related rights were stated to have an aggregate market and realisable value of more than Rs 2,000 crore.
Loan Assignment Under Scrutiny
The loan account was subsequently assigned by Yes Bank to Suraksha ARC-11 Trust on March 31, 2017, as part of an asset reconstruction and bad-debt recovery exercise aimed at recovering outstanding dues from the financially stressed borrower. However, the timing and manner of the assignment have been questioned in the investigation, which alleges that the Yes Bank board approved the transaction on March 30, 2017, a day before the assignment was executed.
At the time of the assignment, the outstanding dues in the PPIPL loan account were approximately Rs 213.6 crore, with related facilities or claims stated to be around Rs 176.53 crore. Against this outstanding exposure, the loan portfolio was assigned to Suraksha ARC-11 Trust for a total consideration of Rs 155.3 crore. Of this, Suraksha ARC paid Rs 23.3 crore in cash upfront, with the remaining Rs 131.98 crore structured through security receipts retained by Yes Bank.
Complainant Alleges Collusion
The complainant in the case, Lakhminder Dayal Singh, 65, a former and suspended director of Sapphire Land Development Pvt Ltd, has alleged in his registered FIR that certain Yes Bank officials and SARCL promoter Sudhir Valia acted in collusion to facilitate the transfer of high-value mortgaged assets to Suraksha ARC by allegedly fabricating records and bypassing prescribed procedures relating to classification and assignment of the loan accounts.
The complainant has further alleged that the loan accounts were assigned to Suraksha ARC despite not having been formally classified as non-performing assets (NPAs) and while moratorium periods were allegedly still in force. He also raised questions over the alleged absence of competitive bidding and proper notice in the process.
Also Watch:
Forgery Charges Added
The addition of the three provisions marks a significant development in the EOW probe, as the agency will now examine whether documents used in the transactions were allegedly fabricated or forged, whether such documents were knowingly relied upon and whether the alleged acts formed part of a larger conspiracy resulting in wrongful gain or loss.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
