Full Breakdown
IDFC First Bank Fraud Case: Alleged Diversion of Haryana Public Funds
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event – Alleged Diversion and Gratification Network
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed a chargesheet alleging that senior Haryana bureaucrats colluded with officials of IDFC First Bank and AU Small Finance Bank to divert funds from eight state departments into three newly opened accounts. The scheme involved illegal gratification to IAS officers Vineet Garg, Mohammed Shayin, Pankaj Agarwal and Dr. Saket Kumar, including gold coins, cash-laden hotel bills and cash-intensive “mujra” parties. The filing links the diversion to WhatsApp chats, call-detail records and witness statements.
Background & Context
The diverted money was intended for the Mukhya Mantri Gramin Awas Yojana (MMGAY) 2.0, which provides residential plots to rural families. Finance-department guidelines dated 13 March 2018 and 12 July 2024 required departmental approval and competitive interest-rate quotations—procedures the CBI says were bypassed. The investigation was taken over from the Haryana State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau in April 2026 after an FIR highlighted discrepancies in the Development and Panchayat Department’s accounts.
Official Statements & Responses
The CBI calls the network a “gratification” scheme that violated finance-department guidelines and moved public money into shell entities such as Swastik Desh Projects. Senior public prosecutor Jaswinder Kumar Bhatti described the banker’s role as “materially different” from co-accused who received bail, emphasizing a “deep-rooted criminal conspiracy.” Special CBI Judge Vijayant Sehgal, hearing Dar’s bail application, said the prosecution’s material “prima facie indicated” active involvement in a large-scale economic offence. Defence counsel B.S. Negi argued that Dar was falsely implicated while performing official duties. The ED, in its raid statements, alleged that the embezzled funds were routed through jewellery businesses and laundered as legitimate transactions, attaching assets worth Rs 211 crore.
Criticism & Opposition
The defence contends that the charges are unfounded and that the alleged phone-based gratification remains “a matter for trial,” challenging the prosecution’s narrative.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Sources differ on the total amount diverted: Rs 504 crore (CBI), Rs 593 crore (prosecution), Rs 645 crore (ED). The CBI provides detailed debit figures, while the prosecution’s figures are broader, leaving a gap in reconciling the exact scale of the alleged fraud.
What’s Next
The CBI’s third chargesheet, naming six IAS officers, has been filed in a Panchkula court, and the trial is ongoing. The ED continues its money-laundering probe, with further asset seizures and examinations of recovered documents. No specific future hearings or deadlines have been disclosed beyond the current judicial proceedings.