Even as the Delhi government’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) on Tuesday arrested Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain, former Delhi Jal Board (DJB) chief executive officer IAS Udit Prakash Rai, and four others in a case alleging manipulation of tender conditions for sewage treatment plant (STP) projects, the case is already proceeding in a Delhi court as a money laundering probe by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The ACB’s corruption probe
The ACB’s case was registered on May 11, 2024, when Jain was the Delhi water minister and chairman of DJB. It was lodged on a complaint by the Delhi government’s Directorate of Vigilance against Hyderabad based firm M/s Euroteck Environmental Pvt. Ltd. (M/s EEPL) and other unidentified persons under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including cheating and criminal conspiracy and under sections of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Deep Dive
What were the specific allegations against Satyendar Jain and the other accused in the DJB case?
Why did the ACB arrest Satyendar Jain and others in connection with the DJB case?
How did the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering investigation relate to the ACB's case?
The FIR alleged irregularities in DJB wherein four tenders worth around ₹1,943 crores were purportedly awarded in October 22 in the name of augmentation and upgradation of existing 10 STPs at Pappankalan and Nilothi, Najafgarh and Keshopur, Coronation Pollar, Narela and Rohini , and Kondli.
Investigation further revealed that Rajkumar Kurra, managing director of M/s EEPL, got the terms and conditions of the DJB tender manipulated through officials of DJB and private persons Nagendra Yadav and others, making the tender restrictive to the usage of ‘IFAS (Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge) technology with fixed media’ only and thereby, enabling Euroteck to become the sole supplier of technology in the said tender.
{{/usCountry}}Investigation further revealed that Rajkumar Kurra, managing director of M/s EEPL, got the terms and conditions of the DJB tender manipulated through officials of DJB and private persons Nagendra Yadav and others, making the tender restrictive to the usage of ‘IFAS (Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge) technology with fixed media’ only and thereby, enabling Euroteck to become the sole supplier of technology in the said tender.
{{/usCountry}}Broadly, the ACB’s allegations said that tender conditions and technical specifications were allegedly made unnecessarily restrictive, limiting genuine competition.
A proposed pilot study, the ACB’s FIR states, was allegedly never conducted, and that restrictive conditions relating to the technology and media to be used were incorporated into the tender.
The agency further said that electronic communication between public officials, private parties and intermediaries showed discussions about tender conditions and corrigenda before they appeared in the official tender documents.
However, the ACB’s case did not reach the trial court as the agency did not file a chargesheet.
The money laundering probe
In the ED case, the investigation by the agency was already underway by July 4, 2024, two months after the ACB lodged its case, when ED conducted search operations in four cities in connection with the DJB’s STP corruption case. During the searches, the agency claimed to have seized cash worth ₹41 lakh, along with various incriminating documents and digital evidence.
Subsequently, in January 2025, the ED lodged an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) based on the ACB’s FIR, which acted as a predicate offence to initiate a case under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The agency’s case broadly supports the same alleged tender manipulation.
On July 3 that year, Jain was questioned at the ED headquarters in connection with the case. On December 8, 2025, based on their investigation, the agency filed a prosecution complaint against 14 persons, including Jain, then CEO of DJB Udit Prakash Rai, then member of DJB Ajay Gupta, then chief engineer Satish Vashishth and other private persons and entities under provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
In its chargesheet, the agency said that an amount of ₹6.73 crores was paid as illegal commission (bribes) through banking channels and cash at the behest of the accused persons and bogus invoices and advances were allegedly used to disguise some of the payments.
ED said that Euroteck allegedly obtained ₹9.96 crores in undue profits as a result of the arrangement and some money was also allegedly moved through hawala channels.
The chargesheet concluded that Jain and others were allegedly involved in and “assisted in generation, acquisition, concealment, possession and use of total proceeds of crime to the tune of around ₹17.70 crores and thus committed the offence of money laundering”.
The ED also went on to provisionally attach moveable and immovable properties amounting to Rs. 15.36 crores belonging to the accused persons. None of the accused persons were arrested in the case till the filing of the prosecution complaint.
The ED’s case chargesheet is currently pending cognisance before Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts.
During the last hearing on August 7, the court orally asked the prosecution to take instructions regarding the status of investigation in the predicate offence, i.e., the ACB’s case, before considering the chargesheet for cognisance and fixed the next date of hearing for September.