The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has arrested Ashok Pal, Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Reliance Power Ltd, in connection with a ₹68 crore money laundering case linked to the Anil Ambani Group. Pal was taken into custody in Delhi late last night after several hours of questioning. He will be produced before a special court, where the agency will seek his custody for further interrogation.
According to the ED, Ashok Pal “played a crucial role in the diversion of funds from a public-listed company.” The agency said he was empowered through a board resolution to finalise and execute documents related to the Solar Energy Corporation of India’s (SECI) Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) tender using Reliance Power’s financial credentials.
The ED has alleged that Pal was instrumental in submitting a fake bank guarantee worth more than ₹68 crore to SECI “with the intention to cheat a public sector undertaking.” Investigators revealed that the guarantee was purportedly issued by FirstRand Bank’s Manila branch—though the bank has no branch in the Philippines—indicating a serious act of deception.
Officials said the fraudulent guarantee was arranged through Odisha-based Biswal Tradelink Pvt Ltd (BTPL), a small firm operating from a residential address with no credible background. The company’s director, Partha Sarathi Biswal, is already in judicial custody in connection with the case.
Investigators also found that the fake guarantee racket operated through lookalike domains of well-known Indian banks, such as s-bi.co.in instead of sbi.co.in, to impersonate legitimate communications. These spoofed domains closely resembled those of banks like SBI, PNB, Indian Bank, and IndusInd Bank by altering just a single character to mislead recipients.
The ED further claimed that Pal approved fake transport invoices running into crores of rupees, allegedly diverting funds through unofficial channels. He reportedly bypassed Reliance Power’s official SAP and vendor systems, using platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram for communications and approvals.
Terming the case as a direct attack on public trust, the agency stated that the fraud “was carried out through a public-listed company where over 75 per cent of shares are held by the public, directly affecting investor interests.”
