New Delhi: Paying around $40,436 in university fees for his US-based daughters and routing rental income of $36,560 from a Manhattan apartment owned by the company’s foreign subsidiary for their personal expenses—these were broader allegations of the Enforcement Directorate against Punit Garg, a former director of Reliance Communications (RCOM).
The agency has alleged that Garg, who has held senior managerial roles at Reliance Communications, disposed of the Manhattan apartment owned by the firm’s overseas subsidiary and routed funds amounting to Rs 70 crore from the US to the United Arab Emirates through sham agreements.
These details were submitted by the federal probe agency before Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court while seeking 14-day custody of Garg, who was arrested Thursday. The special court sent Garg to nine-day custody of the agency.
The agency’s arrest came as part of a comprehensive money-laundering probe into the alleged diversion of funds amounting to more than Rs 40,000 crore secured from various banks, including the State Bank of India, by the Reliance Group’s group companies, which are controlled and managed by Anil Ambani.
The money laundering case that led to Garg’s arrest stems from an FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in August last year against Anil Ambani, Reliance Communications, and unknown public servants. In the FIR, it was alleged that SBI had provided loans totalling more than 6,500 crore to Reliance Communications between 2002 and 2018, which later turned into Non-Performing Assets. Collectively, various companies in the Reliance Group had outstanding dues of more than Rs 40,000 crore to the banking consortium.
ED has arrested Punit Garg, ex-Director of Reliance Communications Ltd, under PMLA in the Rs. 40,000+ Crore RCOM bank fraud and money laundering case. Probe shows he diverted Proceeds of Crime to offshore entities, and used POC for his children’s overseas education. He also… pic.twitter.com/6dLycniSrn
— ED (@dir_ed) January 30, 2026
Representing the agency, special public prosecutors Zoheb Hossain and Simon Benjamin argued before the court that Garg had held core decision-making posts since 2006.
They submitted that Garg served as the president of RCOM’s Global Enterprise Business from 2006 to 2013. Between 2014 and 2017, he worked as the president (Regulatory Affairs) before being appointed as an executive director for the period between 2017 and 2019.
Money trail & web of foreign firms
In its remand application, the agency submitted that Garg paid $40,486.43 in college fees for his daughters at the university in California, and other parts of the US.
This payment was made from the Rs 100 crore that RCOM sent to its US-based subsidiary, Reliance Communications International Inc, the agency alleged.
It also alleged that in his capacity as the director of BONN, another subsidiary of Reliance Communications, Garg sold off a Manhattan apartment owned by the firm to a US-based real estate broker.
Funds of Rs 70 crore were made from the deal and routed to the UAE through a bogus investment agreement between BONN and the real estate brokers. All these dealings were carried out by Garg when the Reliance Group was undergoing insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, the agency alleged in its remand application.
The agency also alleged that Garg ignored several summonses issued by the investigating officer, despite his requests for adjournments on ill health grounds being accommodated. The agency also flagged him as a flight risk, considering his daughter is based in the United States.
In the order granting nine-day remand, Special Judge Ajay Kumar observed, “The huge amount (POC—proceeds of crime) is stated to have been diverted to foreign entities and custodial interrogation of the accused has been sought to ascertain the involvement of other persons in channelizing the POC, besides confronting him with the voluminous data and some other persons.
“Thus, under these circumstances, this court is of the view that the custody remand of the accused is justified for the aforesaid purpose,” the judge said.
On the contrary, Garg’s counsel, including senior advocates Manu Sharma and Vijayendra Pratap Singh, argued that he was merely a non-executive director in the subsidiary of RCOM and was not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of RCOM or its subsidiaries and hence was in no capacity responsible for raising funds in loans from the banks.
They also submitted that the Manhattan apartment was not purchased from the alleged proceeds of crime, and any allegation of the subsequent sale of said property has no nexus to the present investigation.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: ED seeks image makeover with push to restitute assets. Coordination with banks, dedicated software