In a significant development in India’s banking and corporate fraud investigations, an appellate tribunal has found former ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar guilty of accepting a Rs 64-crore bribe in return for sanctioning a Rs 300-crore loan to the Videocon Group. The tribunal confirmed that the payment constituted a clear quid pro quo, routed indirectly through her husband Deepak Kochhar’s company, in violation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and ICICI Bank’s internal policies.

The ruling, issued on July 3, 2025, marks a critical turning point in the multi-year probe conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which had alleged that Kochhar abused her position of authority to extend financial favours in return for personal gain.

What the Tribunal Found

The appellate tribunal’s findings, as reported by The Times of India, outlined how a payment of Rs 64 crore was transferred from Videocon’s subsidiary, Supreme Energy Pvt Ltd (SEPL), to NuPower Renewables Pvt Ltd (NRPL)—a company effectively controlled by Deepak Kochhar—just one day after ICICI Bank disbursed the Rs 300 crore loan to Videocon.

Although NRPL was, on paper, owned by Videocon Chairman Venugopal Dhoot, the tribunal concluded that actual operational control remained with Deepak Kochhar, who served as its Managing Director at the time. The financial trail, backed by statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, was deemed conclusive proof of a corrupt transaction. “The allegations stand corroborated by evidence and the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA Act,” said Appellate Tribunal order, July 2025

Conflict of Interest and Misuse of Position

The tribunal strongly criticised Chanda Kochhar’s failure to disclose her husband’s business ties with the loan recipient, terming it a blatant breach of conflict-of-interest rules and a violation of fiduciary duties.

The ruling emphasised that Kochhar was an integral part of the loan sanctioning committee that approved the disbursal of funds to Videocon, despite the existence of personal financial linkages. This, the tribunal noted, amounted to an “abuse of official position for undue advantage.”

Tribunal Overturns Earlier Asset Relief

In a sharp rebuke to earlier proceedings, the tribunal also reversed the November 2020 decision by the adjudicating authority, which had ordered the release of assets worth Rs 78 crore attached by the ED. The appellate body said the authority had “ignored crucial material facts” and made findings that were “contrary to the record.”

“The adjudicating authority ignored crucial material facts and drew conclusions that contradict the record. Therefore, we cannot endorse its findings,” said Tribunal ruling, TOI report.

The tribunal backed the ED’s asset attachment orders, citing a clear timeline of events and robust documentary evidence to support the agency’s claim of illicit financial gain and money laundering.

Background: The Kochhar-Videocon Loan Case

The case stems from allegations dating back to 2009–2012, when ICICI Bank, under Kochhar’s leadership, extended multiple loans totalling over Rs 1,875 crore to the Videocon Group. Of this, a Rs 300 crore loan was disbursed in 2012, shortly before the alleged Rs 64 crore transfer into Deepak Kochhar’s firm.

In 2018, whistleblower complaints and media investigations brought the matter into the public domain, prompting internal inquiries and regulatory scrutiny. Chanda Kochhar stepped down as ICICI Bank CEO in October 2018, and the ED and CBI subsequently initiated formal investigations.

Legal and Industry Ramifications

The tribunal’s findings significantly bolster the ED’s ongoing prosecution under the PMLA and strengthen the case for further criminal proceedings. It also raises broader questions about corporate governance, regulatory oversight, and conflict-of-interest disclosures in India’s banking sector.

Legal experts note that the ruling may have implications for other pending financial fraud cases and could inform future reforms in board-level ethics and CEO accountability.