New Delhi: When Nitish Ghai, a well-known immigration agent in Punjab, “settled” 108 of 112 cases of visa fraud against him, he might have believed his legal battles were nearing an end. But the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had other plans.
Between 2015 and 2018, Ghai had 112 cases registered against him across Ludhiana and Jalandhar under the Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, along with charges of cheating and criminal conspiracy, for allegedly duping people on the promise of arranging visas and overseas employment. He managed to “settle” 108 of these cases by compensating complainants and persuading the police to close the matters.
Ghai then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking quashing of all cases against him on the basis of a compromise with the complainants. Arguing that the disputes had been amicably settled, he secured relief—and the cases were ultimately quashed.
However, a glaring inconsistency went largely unnoticed. Ghai’s bank account reflected a balance of only Rs 22 lakh, an amount that appeared insufficient to compensate such a large number of complainants
More strikingly, not a single rupee from that sum was shown as having been disbursed.
This raised a critical question: how were the complainants compensated, and how were the cases closed?
When the ED began probing the matter in 2024, it observed that Ghai had succeeded in closing more than 90 percent of the cases against him and appeared poised to settle the remaining four.
If those too were closed, the related money laundering proceedings could collapse for want of a predicate offence. Acting on this concern, the ED filed a complaint with the Punjab Police seeking registration of an FIR.
Although an FIR was registered, the Punjab Police yet again filed a cancellation report before a Ludhiana court in March last year, stating that the ED had not provided any fresh material or evidence to justify continuing the investigation, and noting that the accused had already been cleared in the earlier cases.
The ED challenged this move, arguing that Ghai’s bank records did not reflect any payments corresponding to the settlements in the earlier cases. This, the agency contended, suggested that the settlements may have been made in cash generated through illegal activities.
The court took note of these concerns, pulled up the Punjab Police for its approach, and rejected the cancellation report. As a result, Ghai once again finds himself in the dock.
Also Read: The Great Indian Passport Scam: Labyrinth of fictional identities, expert forgers & pliant system
Charges against immigration agent
Nitish Ghai faced the 112 cases across several police stations within the jurisdictions of Ludhiana and Jalandhar Police commissionerate for allegedly duping people in the name of facilitating their visa and sending them abroad for work.
He was booked under sections related to cheating and conspiracy as well as provisions of the Immigration Act and the Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act.
The Ludhiana Police had filed the cancellation report in March 2025, months after booking Ghai under sections 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) and 318 (4) (cheating) of the IPC, as well as sections of the Immigration Act on a complaint from an officer of the ED probing the money laundering case against him in October 2024.
The agency had sought the registration of the FIR against Ghai on information from the Punjab Police that he had been acquitted or that FIRs had been quashed in all but four of the 112 cases against him.
However, the agency, which had been probing a money-laundering case against Ghai since 2019, submitted that almost all those cases were decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the basis of his settlement with the complainants.
The agency had also alleged in its information to the police that Ghai had purchased immovable properties worth crores of rupees in his name using the proceeds of crime, despite his declared income being only Rs 22 lakh for the period between 2015 and 2018.
“On receipt of the said complaint, the present FIR was registered and investigation was carried out. During investigation, it was found that all the previous FIRs, except one, had already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court and that no fresh material or evidence was supplied by the Enforcement Directorate so as to justify continuation of investigation in the present case,” Chief Judicial Magistrate Dazy Bangarh observed in the order passed 6 February.
“Consequently, the present cancellation report under Section 194 BNSS was prepared and submitted before this Court,” she added.
She, however, also observed that there was scope for further investigation since the complainant ED officer expressed dissatisfaction over the police probe.
“Although no protest petition has been filed by the complainant till date, keeping in view the fact that the complainant has expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation and that there is scope for further investigation, regarding involvement of accused in illegal activity of dealing in ‘Work Visa’ without any licence through his firms, the present cancellation report submitted in the abovesaid FIR is hereby rejected and the matter is ordered to be sent back to concerned SHO for further investigation,” she further observed.
Sources privy to the court proceedings said that a protest petition was filed the same day the order was passed, but it was not taken on record as part of proceedings in this case.
‘Defective & inadequate investigation’
In its protest plea, a copy of which ThePrint has seen, the ED told the Ludhiana court earlier this month that the money laundering case was instituted only on the basis of a letter from the Ludhiana Police Commissioner in September 2019, which included copies of 64 FIRs.
The agency submitted that it recorded statements from several victims, as well as from Ghai, as part of its money-laundering probe and filed a prosecution complaint on 21 October 2024.
A few days later, the agency approached the Ludhiana Police seeking an FIR against Ghai based on its findings, which led to the filing of the FIR on 26 October 2024.
However, the agency alleged improper investigation, reeking of bias in favour of the accused, leading to the filing of the cancellation report. The report, if accepted by the court, would have “buried” the predicate offence necessary for any money laundering probe to continue, the agency submitted in its protest petition.
In its prosecution complaint (chargesheet), the agency alleged that three bank accounts of Ghai and his two firms—Blessing Consultancy and GND Consultancy Services —received a total of Rs 3.24 lakh in credit between 2016 and 2018.
These funds, the agency alleged, were collected under the guise of securing “Work Visa” for hundreds of applicants during the same period, but the visas never materialised, leading to the registration of FIRs.
The agency had also submitted a list of 10 properties acquired by Ghai in Ludhiana during the same period, despite being legally declared as income of just Rs 22 lakh during the same period.
The agency further alleged that Ghai himself had admitted during questioning in October 2024 that he obtained a license from the Punjab government under the provisions of the Punjab Travel Professions Regulation Act, 2012 (the Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012), and not under the Emigration Act, 1983.
Hence, he was not the competent authority to arrange visas for people, the agency said.
The agency had also submitted in the protest petition that Ghai also faced a case in Ludhiana in April 2023 on the charges that he allegedly threatened one of his victims with weapons.
The agency also raised the point that witnesses turning hostile and not appearing before the court during trial proceedings were suggestive of Ghai tampering with the witnesses and the trial proceedings.
The agency submitted before the court that the Punjab Police had never probed the exorbitant charges for visa services collected by Ghai, which it said, was evidenced by the volume of cash deposits made by the accused in his bank account.
Contrary to the grounds of the cancellation report taken by the Punjab Police, which alleged that the agency had not provided “fresh material or evidence” related to the case that would have justified continuation of the investigation, the agency alleged that the police “clearly failed to properly examine the evidences shared by this Directorate under section 66(2) of PMLA, 2002.”
“Pursuant to a defective and inadequate investigation in relation to this FIR a Cancellation Report dated 01.04.2025 came to be filed by the Investigating Agency before this Hon’ble Court. Despite sharing of material by the Applicant with the Investigating Agency, the Cancellation Report is filled with deficiencies and reeks of bias in favour of the accused which highlights poor investigation,” the ED submitted in its protest petition.
“Therefore, Applicant herein is filing a Protest Petition to the Cancellation Report submitted previously by the Investigating Agency.The Petitioner seeks intervention to prevent miscarriage of justice, as the Closure Report buries predicate offences essential to the ongoing PMLA proceedings,” the agency further told the court.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)