ED charge sheet says BJP MLA’s relative siphoned ₹95.66 crore in commodities fraud

ED charges businessman Sudhanshu Dwivedi with defrauding a real-estate investor of ₹95.66 crore through a commodities scam linked to BJP ties.

MUMBAI: The Mumbai unit of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a charge sheet against businessman Sudhanshu Dwivedi, a relative of a BJP legislator from Madhya Pradesh, accusing him of defrauding a real-estate investor of ₹95.66 crore through a commodities trading racket.

ED charge sheet says BJP MLA’s relative siphoned ₹95.66 crore in commodities fraud

According to the charge sheet filed before a special court, Dwivedi lured the complainant to invest in commodities by promising high returns and initially delivered supplies to gain trust. He later stopped supplying commodities, including grains, despite receiving full payment. Instead, he allegedly siphoned off the funds to three related firms and then diverted a large portion— ₹50.84 crore—into personal bank accounts held by himself and family members.

The ED alleged that Dwivedi “orchestrated a systematic fraud”, projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted by routing them through family-controlled entities. The agency said the diverted funds were used for his personal benefit rather than for business.

The court took cognisance of the charge sheet last Friday and issued proceedings against Dwivedi, who was arrested by the ED on June 2 and remains in judicial custody until October 10.

The probe stemmed from an FIR lodged by the Mumbai Police under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act against Dwivedi and others, including his wife. The complainant alleged that apart from cheating him, the accused also threatened him with arms when he demanded his money back.

In May, the ED had conducted search operations in the case, seizing and freezing movable assets, incriminating documents and digital devices.

Opposing the charge sheet, Dwivedi’s lawyer argued that no case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was made out against him. However, the court observed that investigators had gathered sufficient material to show his involvement in money laundering and that a prima facie case existed.