The Enforcement Directorate conducted searches on 4 November 2026 at 13 premises located in Tripura, West Bengal and Maharashtra in connection with an alleged money-laundering case involving a claimed fraud of about Rs 14.55 crore. The Agartala Sub-Zonal Office of the agency issued a press release the following day detailing the operation and the underlying allegations.
According to the Enforcement Directorate, ED, the case stems from a complaint by M/s SK Sales Corporation, a Nagpur-based firm.
The company is said to have deposited approximately Rs 14.55 crore as earnest money deposits between September 2024 and February 2025. These deposits were made against purported tenders floated by the Tripura government for contracts linked to the mid-day meal scheme and the power sector. The agency’s investigation has indicated that no such tenders were ever issued by the Tripura government.
The Enforcement Directorate has alleged that a private proprietary concern operating under the name Directorate of Higher Education was used to collect the money. This entity, according to the agency, belonged to Utpal Kumar Chowdhury and was not a genuine government department. Demand drafts for the earnest money deposits were made payable to this concern. The agency has stated that the use of a name resembling an actual government department helped create the impression that payments were being made to an official institution.
Suspended IAS officer Abhishek Chandra of the Tripura cadre has been named in the investigation. The Enforcement Directorate has said that Chandra represented himself to the complainant as an officer who controlled tender processes in the Tripura government. He is alleged to have introduced the complainant to Utpal Kumar Chowdhury, who was presented as the person responsible for processing the payments. Chandra was under suspension at the time of the searches.
The agency has further stated that a joint-venture arrangement involving Krishna Chakraborty and her husband Sudip Paul was used in the collection of funds. Partial refunds were allegedly made at certain points to maintain the confidence of the complainant and encourage further deposits.
Once the funds reached the accounts linked to the fictitious Directorate of Higher Education, they were allegedly moved rapidly through a network of shell entities. Some of these entities were registered in the names of domestic staff and associates of Utpal Kumar Chowdhury. In several instances the transfers took place within 24 hours, according to the Enforcement Directorate. The agency is examining whether these entities functioned as conduits for layering the money.
The Enforcement Directorate has alleged that part of the proceeds was used to acquire immovable properties. These include flats in a housing project and a residential property in the Shivaji Park area of Mumbai. The properties were acquired in the names of family members of Abhishek Chandra, the agency has said. Additional amounts are alleged to have been spent on foreign travel and luxury goods. Documentary evidence relating to suspected hawala transactions linked to a conduit in Kolkata was also recovered during the searches.
The 4 November searches covered residential premises of Abhishek Chandra, premises linked to alleged hawala operators, and office premises of companies connected with the suspected money trail. The agency seized documents relating to high-value properties, records indicating control over corporate entities, digital devices belonging to various persons under investigation, and material connected with the suspected hawala transactions.
The Enforcement Directorate has linked the present case to an earlier money-laundering investigation registered as ECIR/AGSZO/03/2025. That investigation is based on five FIRs registered in West Bengal and Tripura and involves the same fictitious entity and a similar method of operation. The agency has stated that the total amount alleged to have been defrauded in those cases exceeds Rs 44 crore. Two provisional attachment orders had already been issued in that investigation—one on 22 January 2026 and another on 31 July 2026.
Earlier searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on 26 August 2025 against Utpal Kumar Chowdhury and associated entities had already identified the use of government-like names, including Directorate of Higher Education, Tripura. That operation also recovered stamps of various Tripura government departments, stamps linked to the Directorate of Higher Education, and other documents. Bank accounts with balances totalling about Rs 60 lakh were frozen at the time, and approximately Rs 7 lakh in cash was seized.
In July 2026 the Enforcement Directorate provisionally attached bank deposits worth approximately Rs 1.12 crore under the second attachment order. The attached balances were linked to shell entities allegedly controlled by Utpal Kumar Chowdhury, to Abhishek Chandra, and to a private housing company. A subsequent report indicated that the combined value of assets provisionally attached under the two orders stood at about Rs 1.63 crore.
The underlying police case that triggered the present Enforcement Directorate action was registered on 1 July 2026 at New Capital Complex Police Station in Agartala as FIR number 2026NCC044. The complainant was identified as Manish Malani of Nagpur, acting for SK Sales Corporation. The reported complaint quantified the amount at Rs 14,55,42,945. The FIR names Abhishek Chandra, Utpal Kumar Chowdhury, Krishna Chakraborty and Sudip Paul in connection with the allegations.
The Enforcement Directorate has invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating, cheating by personation, forgery and related offences. These are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which forms the basis of the agency’s investigation. The searches on 4 November 2026 were conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Enforcement Directorate has made clear that its findings and the material seized remain subject to further investigation and eventual judicial scrutiny. The press release records the agency’s investigative steps and allegations. It does not constitute a judicial determination of guilt against any individual or entity.
