“There Are Many Skeletons in Subhash Chandra’s Cupboard—He Must Come Clean”: Where Did His Declared Net Worth of ₹40,562 Crore Go? Kishore Tiwari Demands Forensic Tracing of All Domestic and Overseas Assets
Date: 7 September 2026
“There appear to be many unresolved skeletons in Subhash Chandra’s own financial cupboard. How did a man whose net worth was certified at ₹40,562 crore emerge before the insolvency mechanism with assets of only ₹31.79 crore? Where did the assets go, who acquired them, where were the sale proceeds deposited, and how much was actually paid to creditors? Subhash Chandra must answer these questions with audited documents instead of diverting public attention by making allegations against Mukesh Ambani or anyone else,” Tiwari said.
The enormous discrepancy in the declared net worth of Essel Group founder Subhash Chandra, revealed during his personal insolvency proceedings, is not merely a financial inconsistency. It raises serious questions about the credibility of India’s banking, loan-recovery and insolvency systems, Tiwari stated.
Creditors informed the National Company Law Tribunal that net-worth certificates presented to different lenders in 2017 and 2018 had valued Subhash Chandra’s net worth at approximately ₹45,888 crore and ₹40,562 crore, respectively. However, during the insolvency proceedings, his available personal assets as of 31 July 2024 were stated to be worth merely ₹31.79 crore.
The fundamental question before public financial institutions, depositors, policyholders and taxpayers is this: how did a declared fortune of tens of thousands of crores fall to just a few crores within six or seven years?
“If banks accepted a net-worth certificate of more than ₹40,000 crore while sanctioning loans, then a complete account of every share, company, parcel of land, immovable property, bond, domestic and overseas investment, and every rupee realised through subsequent asset sales must be placed before the public,” Tiwari demanded.
IF THE CERTIFICATES WERE FALSE, REGISTER CRIMINAL CASES
Tiwari said that there are only two possibilities in this matter. Either the net worth exceeding ₹40,000 crore, shown while obtaining credit facilities in 2017–18, was genuine, or it was inflated to secure loans.
If the declared wealth was genuine, investigators must determine when, where, to whom and for what consideration those assets were transferred. Every rupee realised from such sales must be traced to the bank account in which it was deposited and the creditor to whom it was paid.
However, if the net-worth certificates were false, inflated or misleading, criminal proceedings must be initiated against the chartered accountants and valuers who prepared them, the directors of the companies concerned, and the officials who sanctioned the loans without conducting independent verification.
It has been reported that the Central Bureau of Investigation has registered a case against Subhash Chandra and others in connection with LIC Housing Finance. The case reportedly alleges that inflated or false net-worth certificates were used in 2018 to obtain two credit facilities totalling ₹980 crore. Following the defaults, LIC Housing Finance is alleged to have suffered a loss of approximately ₹1,322 crore, including interest and other dues.
These allegations have not yet been finally proved in a court of law. Nevertheless, the registration of the CBI case and the extraordinary discrepancy in the declared net worth have made an independent forensic investigation even more imperative.
₹22,006 CRORE IN ADMITTED CLAIMS AND A ₹6.25-CRORE REPAYMENT PLAN
Subhash Chandra had provided personal guarantees for loans taken by companies associated with the Essel Group. In his personal insolvency proceedings, admitted creditor claims were recorded at approximately ₹22,006.57 crore. Against these claims, a repayment plan proposing to pay creditors only ₹6.25 crore was approved.
This would have resulted in a recovery of approximately 0.03 per cent for creditors and a financial haircut of approximately 99.97 per cent.
That decision has now been stayed by a five-member special bench of the National Company Law Tribunal. Subhash Chandra has also been restrained from directly or indirectly selling, transferring or disposing of his properties.
Tiwari welcomed the stay but said it was not sufficient. An independent investigation must trace every asset listed in the earlier net-worth certificates.
₹40,562 CRORE WAS NOT NECESSARILY CASH
Tiwari also emphasised the need to maintain factual caution while addressing this matter.
The available public documents do not establish that ₹40,562 crore was cash lying in Subhash Chandra’s bank accounts. It was a figure stated in an alleged net-worth certificate. It may have included the then market value of promoter shareholdings, economic interests in group companies, immovable properties and other investments.
A decline in share prices, sale or enforcement of pledged shares, disposal of assets to repay debt and loss of control over companies can substantially reduce a person’s net worth on paper.
However, these possibilities do not make an investigation into the unprecedented fall from ₹40,562 crore to ₹31.79 crore unnecessary. On the contrary, they strengthen the need to trace every asset listed in the certificates independently.
HOW WERE THE PROCEEDS FROM MAJOR ASSET SALES USED
In 2019, Essel Group promoters agreed to sell an 11 per cent stake in Zee Entertainment to the Invesco Oppenheimer fund for ₹4,224 crore. They subsequently announced the sale of another 16.5 per cent stake in Zee, reducing the promoters’ holding to approximately five per cent.
At that time, it was reported that nearly 96 per cent of the promoters’ Zee shares had been pledged with lenders.
The promoter stake in Essel Propack was sold to Blackstone. Financial reports stated that the promoters received approximately ₹2,157 crore from that transaction. Transactions involving the sale of energy, road, power-transmission, solar-power and other infrastructure assets were also undertaken.
No consolidated and independently certified public account has established which creditors received the proceeds from these asset sales, how much was used towards principal repayment, how much went towards interest or penal charges, how much debt was settled, and whether any funds were transferred to related companies.
Subhash Chandra has claimed in his public clarification that approximately ₹43,000 crore of debt was repaid. However, a promoter’s statement cannot substitute an independent audit. A creditor-wise statement must disclose the name of every lender, the sanctioned amount, actual disbursement, recovery, negotiated settlement, proceeds from asset sales and the amount that remains outstanding, Tiwari demanded.
HISTORY OF OFFSHORE CORPORATE TRANSACTIONS
The 2017 Paradise Papers investigation reported transactions involving companies associated with the Essel Group and jurisdictions including Mauritius, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Hong Kong and Singapore.
According to those records, a loan of US$62 million was raised from Credit Suisse in 2013. The loan was extended to SMTP Limited in Mauritius, which reportedly provided a convertible loan to Essel Holdings Limited, Mauritius.
The documents reportedly described Essel Holdings Limited as a company indirectly owned and controlled by Subhash Chandra. The financing was also said to have been indirectly secured by approximately 46 million promoter shares of Zee Entertainment.
The investigation further referred to transactions involving Borth Company and NatWell Synergies in the British Virgin Islands; Veria International and Natural Wellness companies in Bermuda; and Asia Today, which had connections with Mauritius and Hong Kong.
Subhash Chandra’s office acknowledged at the time that the companies concerned belonged to the Essel Group. It maintained, however, that all transactions complied with the laws and regulations of India and the respective jurisdictions.
These records show that offshore companies and overseas financing routes associated with the Essel Group existed. They do not, however, prove that the entire ₹40,562 crore was transferred abroad or that the same money subsequently returned to India disguised as foreign investment.
Establishing this would require a forensic examination of overseas bank accounts, international transfer messages, foreign-exchange transactions, ultimate beneficial ownership records, tax filings and investments entering India from foreign jurisdictions.
SEBI’S OBSERVATIONS ABOUT LAYERED MOVEMENT OF FUNDS
When independent directors of Zee resigned in 2019, they raised concerns about a ₹200-crore fixed deposit belonging to Zee that Yes Bank had adjusted against loans of seven entities associated with the Essel Group.
Zee claimed that the ₹200 crore had subsequently been recovered from the related entities. However, after examining the relevant bank accounts, the Securities and Exchange Board of India preliminarily observed that a substantial portion of the money returned to Zee had originally come from Zee itself or from other listed companies of the Essel Group. The money allegedly passed through several related entities before returning to Zee’s account.
This was a regulatory finding confined to a transaction of ₹200 crore. It is not proof that ₹40,562 crore was taken abroad and subsequently brought back into India. Nevertheless, SEBI’s observations concerning the movement of money through multiple layers of related companies underline the need for a comprehensive financial investigation.
In its July 2026 action, SEBI reportedly found that Zee’s property had been used as collateral for borrowings of entities connected with major shareholders without the necessary approvals and disclosures. SEBI took punitive action against Subhash Chandra, Punit Goenka and Zee.
BEFORE SPEAKING ABOUT “SKELETONS” IN MUKESH AMBANI’S CUPBOARD, SUBHASH CHANDRA MUST ANSWER FOR HIS OWN FINANCIAL RECORD
Kishore Tiwari said:
“Subhash Chandra is entitled to raise questions about Mukesh Ambani, Reliance or any other corporate house. His allegations must also be independently investigated and the persons accused by him must be given an opportunity to respond. But allegations against another industrialist cannot become a shield against scrutiny of Chandra’s own financial affairs.”
“Subhash Chandra has publicly spoken about alleged skeletons in Mukesh Ambani’s cupboard. The country is equally entitled to ask what lies in Subhash Chandra’s own cupboard. There are unanswered questions about conflicting net-worth figures, personal guarantees, the use of listed-company assets, the movement of money through related entities, offshore corporate structures, the sale of valuable promoter assets and the microscopic recovery offered to creditors.”
“Chandra must come clean by publishing the original net-worth certificates, the complete schedules of assets and liabilities attached to those certificates, the valuation reports, the names of the professionals who certified them, all asset-sale agreements, the utilisation of sale proceeds, creditor-wise repayments, overseas holdings, trust structures and ultimate beneficial ownership records.”
“A televised speech, a lengthy video or allegations against Mukesh Ambani cannot replace documentary accountability. The rule must be the same for Mukesh Ambani, Subhash Chandra, Gautam Adani or any other corporate house: disclose the records, face an independent investigation and establish the truth before the law.”
INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGED OVERSEAS TRANSFER, BUT DO NOT DECLARE IT PROVED WITHOUT EVIDENCE
Kishore Tiwari said:
“There are allegations that ₹40,000 crore was transferred abroad and that the same funds later returned to India. This allegation has not been conclusively established by the publicly available documents. We will, therefore, not present an unproven allegation as a judicially established fact.
“However, the question of how certified net worth of ₹40,562 crore became merely ₹31.79 crore within a few years is indisputable and extremely serious. Considering the offshore corporate structures revealed in the Paradise Papers, the pledging of Zee shares, the movement of funds through related entities and the history of asset sales worth thousands of crores, a promoter’s clarification alone cannot be accepted as sufficient.”
“Investigating this matter does not amount to prejudging any individual. On the contrary, an independent global asset-tracing exercise is essential to determine what is true and what is false. If the funds were lawfully used to repay creditors, a certified account should be published. If the net-worth certificates were false, cases must be registered against those responsible. If assets were concealed, diverted to related parties or brought back into India through offshore structures, the assets of every beneficiary must be attached.”
DEMAND FOR A MULTI-AGENCY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM
Kishore Tiwari has made the following demands:
A multi-agency Special Investigation Team should be constituted under the supervision of a retired judge of the Supreme Court.
The Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Financial Intelligence Unit–India, Reserve Bank of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India and Income Tax Department should jointly investigate the matter.
All Indian and overseas bank accounts, international transfer messages, foreign-exchange transactions, foreign direct investments and overseas investments connected with Subhash Chandra and the related companies between 2010 and 2026 should be examined.
Information concerning the related companies, trusts, immovable properties and ultimate beneficial owners in Mauritius, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Hong Kong, Singapore, the United States and Switzerland should be obtained.
Investigators must determine who prepared the net-worth certificates showing ₹45,888 crore and ₹40,562 crore, the assets on which these valuations were based, and why the lenders failed to verify them independently.
Every rupee realised through the sale of assets connected with Zee, Dish TV, Essel Propack, energy, roads, power transmission, solar power and overseas wellness businesses should be traced.
The ultimate beneficial owners behind major investments entering India from overseas should be disclosed, and investigators must determine whether any such money belonged to the Chandra family, group companies, related parties or trusts associated with them.
The Essel Group’s claim that it repaid ₹43,000 crore of debt should be verified by an independent national audit institution, and creditor-wise findings should be published.
Restrictions on the sale, gifting, transfer or creation of third-party rights over domestic and overseas assets should remain in force until the investigation is completed.
The role of bank officials must also be investigated to determine whether the net-worth certificates were verified when the loans were sanctioned and why the collateral and personal guarantees were not enforced in time.
WHY SEIZURE FOR THE POOR AND HAIRCUTS FOR CAPITALISTS?
Tiwari said:
“If a farmer’s land record carries a loan of ₹50,000 or ₹1 lakh, the bank sends a recovery notice to his home. Even if his crop has failed, market prices have collapsed or his family is facing a crisis, he receives no relief from compound interest and attachment proceedings.
“Women’s self-help groups face coercive recovery. Educated unemployed youth seeking small business loans are subjected to credit scores, guarantors, collateral requirements and endless documentation. If a small entrepreneur’s account becomes overdue, the bank attaches his machinery and home.
“But when the promoter of a large industrial group gives personal guarantees for loans, produces certificates showing a net worth exceeding ₹40,000 crore and then, within a few years, claims to possess assets worth only ₹31.79 crore, the system offers a route to repay merely ₹6.25 crore against admitted claims of ₹22,006.57 crore. How can this be described as equal justice?”
“Seizure for the poor and the benefit of doubt for capitalists is a mockery of the constitutional principles of equality, social justice and economic justice. The money held by banks is not the private property of the government or banking officials. It belongs to farmers, workers, retired employees, policyholders, middle-class depositors and the country’s taxpayers.”
WARNING
“If the government does not announce a time-bound forensic investigation into the discrepancy in Subhash Chandra’s declared wealth and the domestic and overseas transactions of the Essel Group, the Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti will take this issue to the people’s court.
“The country does not need another lengthy clarification. It needs the original list of assets, sale agreements, a trail of bank accounts, creditor-wise repayment details and information identifying the ultimate beneficial owners.
“If the ₹40,562-crore net worth was genuine, where did those assets go? If it was false, who sanctioned the loans and how? If the related funds were routed through offshore companies and returned to India, who was the beneficiary? We will not remain silent until these three questions are answered,” Kishore Tiwari declared.
#SubhashChandra #SubhashChandraGoenka #SubhashChandraCase
#EsselGroup #ZeeGroup #ZeeEntertainment #ZEEL #ZeeMedia #DishTV
#PunitGoenka #EsselPropack
#WhereDid40562CroreGo #FortyThousandCroreQuestion
#ComeCleanSubhashChandra #SkeletonsInTheCupboard
#AnswerThe40562CroreQuestion #AccountForEveryRupee
#PublishTheAssetTrail #TraceTheMissingAssets #TraceTheMoneyTrail
#FollowTheMoney #OpenTheFinancialCupboard #DiscloseAllAssets
#DiscloseOverseasAssets #DiscloseAssetSaleProceeds
#PublishCreditorWiseRepayment #IndependentForensicAudit
#ForensicAssetTracing #GlobalAssetTracing
#JudiciallyMonitoredProbe #SupremeCourtMonitoredProbe
#MultiAgencyInvestigation #FinancialForensics
#BeneficialOwnershipDisclosure #UltimateBeneficialOwnership
#RelatedPartyTransactions #LayeredTransactions
#OffshoreCorporateStructures #OffshoreFinance
#ForeignFundTrail #RoundTrippingInvestigation
#AssetDiversionInvestigation #CorporateGovernance
#PromoterGuarantee #PersonalGuarantee
#DeclaredNetWorth #NetWorthDiscrepancy
#LoanRecovery #DebtRecovery #CorporateDebt
#CorporateDefault #BankLoanDefault #CorporateHaircuts
#BankingReforms #InsolvencyReforms #IBCReforms #NCLTReforms
#ProtectPublicMoney #ProtectBankDepositors
#ProtectPolicyholders #ProtectTaxpayers
#NCLT #NCLAT #IBC #IBBI
#NationalCompanyLawTribunal
#
