The (CBI) Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against Hyderabad-situated Chadalavada Infratech Ltd for a loan fraud of Rs 166.93 crore.
The federal agency has indicated the firm of plotting of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal behavior on a complaint filed by an official of the State Bank of India (SBI).
CBI filed FIR against the Hyderabad firm, Chandalavada Ravindra Babu (managing director), and unidentified public workers and private people on the complaint of Debasish Bhattacharjee, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India’s Stressed Assets Management Branch, Hyderabad.
As per the agency, a lettered complaint was taken on March 13 mentioning for filing an FIR in regard to the loan account of CITL and its chiefs and others for the alleged offense of deception perpetrated by siphoning off and divination of funs in a criminal conspiracy to cheat with criminal behavior, subsequently creating wrongful loss the bank to the number of Rs 166.93 crore
The offense was purportedly committed between 2010 to 2018. The FIR was filed on Monday, with the CBI authorities saying that there was a delay in confirmation of the complaint because of COVID-19.
The charged purportedly went into a criminal conspiracy with unidentified officials of the SBI and carried out fraud upon the bank.
As per the complaint, Managing Director Chandalavada Ravindra Babu and Chadalavada Venkata Subba Rao (presently deceased) had benefited financial credit limits by the method of fund-based limits and non-fund-based limits to the number of Rs 281.23 crore at the SBI’s Nacharam Industrial Area Branch, Hyderabad for the execution of power foundation projects as EPC contractor in different states.
The records of the organization were running sporadically since January 1, 2011, and became NPA on April 15, 2011. The records of the organization were relocated to SBI, SAM Branch, Secunderabad on September 22, 2019, for rebuilding/restoration of the unit.
Even after the record became NPA and a terrible performance by the organization, the first rebuild was affirmed by the bank on April 17, 2014, and again the second rebuild was authorized by the bank on December 11, 2015, without taking any extra fund-based exposure by holding the money credit limit at the current level and improved BG limits and permitting the organization repayment relaxations, said the complainant.
The fraud became visible when the bank directed a forensic review of the loan account. It uncovered that the organization made payments to specific groups directly and indirectly, and furthermore discovered abnormalities in the issuance of Letters of Credits and quid pro quo exchanges adding up to divination and misappropriation of funds.
It is claimed that the MD/Directors of the organization deceived the bank and deceitfully acquired the credit facilities. The loan proceeds were redirected to specific accounts without using them for the reason they were authorized.
The case was filed and the organization is investigating the issue further.
