Gurugram: On 29 March 2025, a senior IDFC First Bank executive sent an email to two of his superiors. The bank’s Sector 32 branch in Chandigarh, he wrote, was offering government clients interest rates the bank had never approved. The executive’s account surfaces at a time when IDFC First Bank has moved the Special CBI Court in Panchkula, asking that it be treated as a victim in the case. The court’s decision on the plea is awaited.
The said executive is Anish Kapur, the bank’s regional head for government banking.
His account is now part of the CBI’s case file on the alleged Rs 645-crore fraud involving Haryana government deposits with IDFC First Bank.
Kapur’s statement was recorded on 14 May, 2026 under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) at the CBI’s camp office in Chandigarh. The statement, a copy of which ThePrint has reviewed, was recorded in the presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police Shailendra Kumar Singh of the CBI’s Economic Offences-III branch, New Delhi.
The case relates to an alleged fraud of Rs 644 crore involving government deposits with IDFC First Bank. The money belonged to eight Haryana government departments and organisations and two departments of the Chandigarh Administration. The CBI is investigating how these deposits were placed and routed. Its charge sheets in the case name bank employees and several IAS officers of the Haryana cadre.
The March 2025 email
Anish Kapur, IDFC First Bank’s regional head for government banking, told the CBI that his March 2025 email—almost a year before the first FIR by the Vigilance Bureau—was addressed to Guljiv Sawhney, business head of the bank’s government banking division, and Abhijit Singh Toor, zonal head. It is part of the case file marked MR No. 14 (page 972).
Kapur told the agency he had learnt that Ribhav Rishi, then branch manager at Chandigarh’s Sector 32 branch, and Abhay Kumar, a relationship manager with the bank’s TASC team, were servicing government clients.
These included Smart City Chandigarh, CREST and Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL). According to Kapur, Ribhav Rishi and Abhay Kumar were offering government clients “inflated (interest) rates not approved by the bank” against various deposit products. Kapur said he also learnt that government funds of “huge amount” were being routed through the private tech company Capco, which “raised serious suspicion”.
In his statement to the CBI, Kapur said he took the matter to his supervisory officer and red-flagged it.
Capco Fintech Services is among the companies at the centre of the alleged IDFC First Bank fraud. Investigators describe it as a shell entity, one of several firms through which money drawn from Haryana government and Chandigarh civic accounts was allegedly routed. On paper, Capco was promoted by individuals with no visible link to high finance. Its registered owners included a driver’s wife and personal staff of Ribhav Rishi.
ThePrint sent detailed questions to IDFC First Bank MD and CEO V. Vaidyanathan and the bank’s corporate communications team, asking whether the bank could confirm that Anish Kapur had expressed his concerns to the senior management in an email on 29 March, 2025, and whether the bank informed the RBI, the Haryana government or any agency.
The questionnaire also sought to corroborate Kapur’s account of the removal of Haryana government’s earlier cap of Rs 50 crore per department for newly empanelled banks, and how Kapur’s email fits with the bank’s plea before the Special CBI Court in Panchkula requesting that it be treated as a victim in this case. ThePrint had not received any response by the time of publication. This report will be updated if a response is received.
Rates, procedure, risk & influence
Kapur told the CBI that he listed four sets of concerns to his superiors.
His first concern was about “inflated” interest rates. Ribhav Rishi, working with the TASC team, was submitting letters that offered interest rates not in line with the bank’s card rates. Kapur said a letter “discreetly obtained” from HPGCL did not mention FD rates, tenure or terms and conditions. The rates offered to government clients, he said, were never approved by the bank. He also said additional rates were being committed to various government departments without the approval of the bank’s Treasury.
The second concern revolved around procedural lapses. Kapur said the bank’s government business team was being “deliberately excluded” from discussions. Efforts were being made, he said, to hide rate commitments from the bank’s Treasury and government business team so as to avoid scrutiny. He said a vendor account of Capco was being used to route government transactions and “cover the gap amounts”.
Kapur’s third concern was risk to the bank. If an external audit or regulatory check found that IDFC First Bank was offering unauthorised rates, it could have been blacklisted permanently from handling Haryana government funds. He said this could mean losses of crores and serious damage to the bank’s reputation.
The fourth concern was Ribhav Rishi’s influence within government departments. Kapur said HPGCL shared the letter—issued by Rishi, in coordination with TASC teams—with the bank in confidence, mainly because of personal connections. He said a colleague’s husband was then Managing Director of HPGCL. Rishi, however, had told HPGCL officials not to entertain Kapur’s team so that the issue could be addressed “officially”, Kapur told the CBI. He added there was a “high probability” that such practices were widespread as far as other government accounts were concerned.
What Kapur sought from seniors
Anish Kapur also told the CBI that he asked for an immediate internal investigation and audit of all government and TASC accounts opened by the Sector 32 branch. He wanted the rate commitments and unauthorised vendor transactions verified.
He also asked for the Capco vendor account to be examined for “fraudulent adjustments” used to cover the unauthorised commitments, and for urgent direction from senior management given the severity of the matter.
Kapur said the bank later held an internal inquiry that substantiated the allegations against Ribhav Rishi and Abhay Kumar. Kumar was expelled on 10 June, 2025 and Rishi on 5 August, 2025.
However, Kapur’s statement does not say what steps IDFC First Bank took in the period between his email and the expulsions, or whether the matter was reported to any regulator or agency.
Empanelment with Haryana
The CBI also questioned Kapur about how IDFC First Bank got on to the Haryana government’s list of empanelled banks. He said the state government invited proposals in November 2023. A team of Kapur, Toor and Sawhney submitted the bank’s proposal on 14 December, 2023. It had data on parameters set by the state, including net worth, capital adequacy ratio, NPAs and branch spread.
The bank reported a capital adequacy ratio of 16.11 percent and net NPAs of 0.60 percent for FY 2023-24. It submitted that it had 79 branches in Haryana across 18 districts, of which 23 were rural and 56 semi-urban or urban. Its CD ratio was 38 percent as of December 2023. Profit was Rs 452.28 crore in FY 2021, Rs 145.49 crore in FY 2022, Rs 2,437.13 crore in FY 2023 and Rs 2,957 crore in FY 2024.
In March 2024, Kapur said, the state asked banks to update their data to 31 March. The bank did so on 4 April, 2024. It was subsequently empanelled by a notification dated 12 July, 2024 from the Finance Department, with a limit of Rs 50 crore on deposits by any one department of the Haryana government.
The Rs 50-crore cap
The CBI further asked Kapur what documents the bank submitted to get the cap removed.
On 9 October, 2025, the state’s Finance Department removed the earlier cap of Rs 50 crore per department for newly empanelled banks other than small finance banks. This put them on par with other universal banks. Kapur told the CBI that IDFC First Bank “has never submitted any proposal” to any Haryana government agency seeking removal of the cap.
He said he is the person authorised to move such a proposal on the bank’s behalf, and that he made no such proposal. He said he did not know who may have submitted such a proposal, “if submitted on behalf of IDFC First Bank”.
Kapur also said the bank’s decision-making group held a general view that it would compete better with more accounts than with money concentrated in a few relationship accounts. “Hence we were not interested in removal of cap,” Kapur told the CBI, adding that the bank was “also surprised” when the cap was removed.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: A ‘seen’ file noting did in Haryana IAS officer. Tried to bury IDFC scam before raising alarm—CBI