India has taken an unprecedented step in its long-running battle against large-scale financial fraud, with the Supreme Court agreeing to a ₹51,000 crore ($570 million) settlement proposed by fugitive businessmen Nitin and Chetan Sandesara. The move signals a possible shift in how authorities pursue cross-border economic offenders and could influence several high-profile cases still stuck in international litigation.
The Sandesara brothers, who ran a sprawling business empire spanning pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, and infrastructure, fled India in 2017 after being accused of orchestrating a ₹1.43 lakh crore ($1.6 billion) bank fraud involving a consortium of domestic lenders. They travelled on Albanian passports and have since remained abroad despite multiple non-bailable warrants and red‐corner notices issued by Indian agencies.
According to a Supreme Court order published on Friday, the brothers have agreed to pay roughly one-third of their alleged dues — about ₹51,000 crore ($570 million) — in exchange for the quashing of criminal proceedings. The order records submissions by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi that his clients were willing to settle “to get rid of all proceedings”, and sets a payment deadline of December 17.
The case falls under India’s 2018 Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, a stringent law designed to curb financial absconders by allowing authorities to seize domestic and overseas assets. Only 14 individuals have been designated under the law so far, including Kingfisher Airlines founder Vijay Mallya and jeweller Nirav Modi, both accused in major bank fraud cases and both denying wrongdoing.
Despite their fugitive status, the Sandesara brothers have continued to operate overseas through Sterling Oil Exploration and Energy Production (SEEPCO), a Nigeria-based company that claims to contribute 2.5 percent of the country’s federal revenue. Their lavish lifestyle and high-profile social circles — including Bollywood celebrities — had once made them fixtures of India’s business elite.
Central crime investigation agencies allege that the Sandesara group siphoned funds through a complex web of shell companies and inflated project costs, accusations the brothers have repeatedly rejected.
Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s acceptance of a settlement of this scale may open the door for other economic offenders to negotiate similar resolutions. “This mirrors approaches used in several foreign jurisdictions where financial penalties can substitute prolonged criminal trials,” a senior lawyer said. “But such settlements may leave lenders recovering only a fraction of their dues.”
The government has not yet commented on whether the ruling could set a wider precedent. For now, banks and investigative agencies await clarity on whether the brothers will meet the court-mandated deadline — and what the decision could mean for India’s broader fight against economic fugitives.