CBI Files Fraud Case Against Zee Founder Subhash Chandra Over ₹1,322 Crore LIC Housing Finance Loss

India's Central Bureau of Investigation registered a First Information Report on August 31, 2026, against Subhash Chandra, the founder of Zee and chairman of Essel Group, alleging he defrauded LIC Housing Finance Limited (LICHFL), a state-run lender, of more than ₹1,322 crore.

The FIR followed a complaint LICHFL filed with the CBI the same day. The agency also named directors Pankaj Suroliya, Amish Pandya and Rajeev Dholakia, along with four companies and unidentified others, according to The Hindu.

What LICHFL Alleges

LICHFL's complaint, now part of the FIR, says the lender extended two credit facilities in 2018 based on personal guarantees Chandra signed. A ₹500 crore facility went to Vasant Sagar Properties Pvt Ltd, with Pan India Infraprojects Pvt Ltd as co-borrower, for business expansion. A ₹480 crore facility went to Digital Subscriber Management and Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd, with Spirit Infrapower and Multiventures Pvt Ltd as co-borrower, under a rental discounting arrangement, per Business Standard and Moneycontrol.

Both loans defaulted. LICHFL says the outstanding balances stood at ₹570.50 crore and ₹507.25 crore respectively, with the total loss to the lender now exceeding ₹1,322 crore.

The complaint centers on two net worth certificates. One, dated March 28, 2018 and issued by chartered accountancy firm DIM & Co, put Chandra's net worth at ₹59,113 crore (roughly $6.2 billion) as of March 31, 2017. A second, issued July 6, 2018 by MPJ & Co, put it at ₹40,562 crore, according to The Times of India and Hindustan Times.

LICHFL alleges those figures were false. The complaint says that during Chandra's subsequent personal insolvency proceedings under India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, he told the tribunal his net worth in 2024 was ₹31.79 crore, and that even in 2017-18 it never exceeded ₹40,000 crore, according to the CBI FIR as reported by The Hindu and Business Standard.

The CBI has booked the case under provisions covering criminal conspiracy, cheating and criminal breach of trust. LICHFL's complaint further alleges Chandra "colluded" with the borrower companies, which "misappropriated" the loan funds, and that he "created false documents to denote inflated and bogus net worth," per Business Standard.

Look-Out Circular and Flight Risk Claim

At the CBI's request, immigration authorities issued a look-out circular against Chandra at airports, ports and land border crossings, according to Hindustan Times. LICHFL's complaint told the agency the accused "have publicly disclosed their intention to leave India and are likely to do so" unless the FIR was registered immediately, a claim reported by both The Quint and The Hindu.

That is LICHFL's characterization in a complaint, not an established fact. No source in this reporting shows Chandra confirming any plan to leave the country, and Chandra has not responded publicly to the allegation.

The Enforcement Directorate is separately examining the matter but has not opened a formal probe, an unnamed officer told Hindustan Times.

The NCLT Backdrop

This FIR lands amid an already contentious personal insolvency case. On August 25, 2026, a National Company Law Tribunal bench approved a repayment plan under which Chandra would pay just ₹6.25 crore to settle his individual liability as a personal guarantor, against total admitted creditor claims of ₹22,006.57 crore, according to The Hindu.

That approval didn't survive a week. On September 1, a five-member NCLT bench stayed the ruling and imposed restrictions on Chandra, per The Hindu's reporting, though the full scope of that stay order wasn't detailed in available coverage.

The gap between a ₹59,113 crore net worth certificate signed in 2018 and a ₹31.79 crore figure claimed in 2024 is the crux of LICHFL's case. A guarantor whose backing evaporates from tens of thousands of crores to barely enough to buy a modest apartment is either the victim of a catastrophic business collapse or the author of fabricated paperwork. That's exactly what the CBI now has to determine.

What's Unproven

None of this constitutes a conviction. No charges have been formally adjudicated, and Chandra has not been quoted responding to the FIR in any of the available reporting. Hindustan Times said it left him messages and queried Zee's corporate communications team without reply, and Business Standard reported no immediate reaction from any of the accused.

The next procedural marker is whether the CBI moves from FIR to formal charge sheet, and whether the ED, still only "examining" the matter, opens its own money-laundering probe under India's Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Either would mark a materially different stage than where this case stands today.