Ex-ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar found guilty of accepting ₹64 cr bribe for approving Videocon loan

In an order dated July 3, the appellate tribunal ruled that the money was routed through Kochhar’s husband, Deepak Kochhar, using a company linked to Videocon.

The tribunal held that the transaction was a clear instance of quid pro quo and upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) case.

It noted that the ED had submitted strong documentary evidence and legally admissible statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), establishing that Chanda Kochhar had concealed her conflict of interest and approved the loan in breach of ICICI Bank’s internal rules.

The tribunal said that the ₹64 crore was transferred from Videocon group company SEPL to NuPower Renewables Pvt Ltd (NRPL), which was under Deepak Kochhar’s control, just a day after ICICI Bank disbursed the ₹300 crore loan.

Although NRPL’s initial ownership was shown under Videocon chairman Venugopal Dhoot, the tribunal observed that Deepak Kochhar, who served as NRPL’s managing director, was the one truly in control.

It said Chanda Kochhar had failed to disclose these links, creating a serious conflict of interest.

Quoting from the order, the report said: “The allegations stand corroborated by evidence and the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA Act.”

It added that the money trail was direct and showed abuse of authority for personal benefit.

The tribunal also came down heavily on a November 2020 ruling by an adjudicating authority that had ordered the release of assets attached by the ED.

The tribunal said the earlier order had overlooked vital evidence and reached conclusions inconsistent with the record.

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

It backed the ED’s decision to attach the Kochhars’ assets, calling the move well-supported by a clear sequence of events and strong documentary evidence.

The tribunal concluded that the series of actions—from sanctioning the loan to the fund transfer—reflected a blatant misuse of official position and ethical violations.