Let me start with two numbers.
₹50 crore. ₹7,619.24.
On 28 October 2025, a bank representative reportedly walked into the Haryana Labour Welfare Board’s office in Panchkula. The Board believed it held a ₹50-crore fixed deposit made with workers’ money. According to the CBI case, the bank’s records showed a savings account with just ₹7,619.24 in it.
Read that again slowly. Fifty crore on one side, and a few thousand rupees on the other.
Everything I want to tell you in this article lives in the gap between those two numbers.
Why I’m Writing This
I worked in a bank for ten years. Let me tell you about one afternoon I have never forgotten.
At our branch, there was a customer we all knew. He came in almost every day. We knew his face, his routine, even how he took his tea. In banking, a customer like that is a trusted customer, and I’ll be honest: trust makes you relax.
One day he handed over a cheque for an RTGS transfer of ₹2.5 lakh. RTGS is the system for moving large sums between banks on the same day. The teller entered it. By mistake, one extra zero crept in, and the transfer went out for ₹25 lakh instead.
Now, banks have a safeguard for exactly this. A second officer checks and approves every transaction. We call it the maker-checker system: one person makes the entry, another person checks it. But that day, the approving officer didn’t look closely either. Two sets of eyes, and the extra zero slipped past both.
About an hour later, our customer walked back in. He told us ₹25 lakh had been debited from his account.
I remember that moment. We checked, and he was right.
What happened next is why I still tell this story. Nobody panicked, and nobody hid anything. We contacted the RTGS department at once and kept in clear, thorough communication with them. By the end of the day, the money was back.
It was an honest mistake and a happy ending. But it taught me two things I have carried ever since.
First, a control works only if someone actually performs it. We had a checker. The checker didn’t check.
Second, speed saves money. We caught our error within an hour. Compare that with the Haryana case I’m about to describe. Reportedly, the Welfare Board’s ₹50 crore reached the account on 6 March 2025, and nine days later only ₹74,000 remained.
I am not comparing an honest mistake to an alleged fraud. I am comparing how fast each one was noticed.
So this is not a news report. It is my reading, as an ex-banker, of how this fraud might have worked, based on what investigators say. I wasn’t in that branch, and I don’t know what was said in any room. Where I’m giving my opinion, I’ll tell you. Where I’m describing allegations, I’ll tell you that too.
One important thing before we begin. Everything below about named people is an allegation by the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), or Haryana’s vigilance bureau. Nobody named has been convicted. Ribhav Rishi’s lawyer told ThePrint the allegations are baseless. A court will decide the truth, not me.
First, a One-Minute Banking Lesson
I’ll use a few banking words, so let me explain them simply.
- Fixed deposit (FD): you lock money in a bank for a set time at a set interest rate. The bank’s computer records it. The paper receipt is only a copy.
- KYC: the identity documents you give a bank, like Aadhaar or PAN.
- Shell company: a company that exists on paper but runs no real business. It is often used to move money around.
- Debit note or cheque: a written instruction that takes money out of an account.
- Repo rate: the benchmark interest rate set by the RBI. It tells you roughly what money costs in the market.
Keep the first one in mind: the receipt is a copy, and the bank’s record is the truth. Everything else follows from that.
The People at the Centre
I want to introduce the main names, because it helps to know who is who. Remember, these are all allegations.
Ribhav Rishi is the man the agencies put at the centre. He was branch manager at IDFC FIRST Bank’s Sector 32 branch in Chandigarh from April 2023 to August 2025. The CBI calls him the principal architect and the ED calls him the mastermind. The CBI also alleges he kept the operation going after he moved to AU Small Finance Bank.
Abhay Kumar was a relationship manager. The ED says he played a central role with Rishi, and alleges his relatives received about ₹11.22 crore from entities linked to the transactions.
Vikram Wadhwa is a Chandigarh realtor. Haryana’s vigilance bureau named him the main accused, saying he used his contacts with senior officials to persuade departments to put public money in a private bank. The CBI says he received ₹4.57 crore in cash and ₹33.25 crore through shell companies. So the agencies don’t fully agree on who sits at the top.
Rajan Katodia owns Sawan Jewellers. The CBI alleges that more than ₹329 crore of siphoned money was routed through shell companies to his business and turned into cash through gold.
The officials. Amit Dewan, a director at the state power utility, was accused of colluding with Rishi and taking about ₹50 lakh, and was dismissed in May. Two finance and accounts controllers, Rajesh Sangwan and Randhir Singh, were arrested. The CBI has also sought permission to question eight IAS officers.
The shell companies. The ED’s searches named Swastik Desh Projects, Capco Fintech Services, Maa Vaibhav Laxmi Interiors and SRR Planning Gurus. Reports say three such firms were set up in the names of Rishi’s personal assistant, his driver’s wife, his mother and a chartered accountant.
How I Think It Worked: Five Moves
Here is my reading, move by move. Think of it as a banker watching a film and pointing out where the alarms should have rung.
Move 1: Find money nobody is watching
A government department’s balance doesn’t belong to one person, and that makes it attractive. The CBI alleges Rishi started courting departments before IDFC FIRST Bank was even approved for Haryana government business. To me, that says the plan came before the permission.
Move 2: Offer a miracle
The CBI alleges Rishi falsely promised interest rates higher than the bank’s official rates, and that officials accepted the offers knowing they were false. One report mentions a 14 percent rate on a savings account, when the repo rate was 6.50 percent.
The first rule I learned in banking is this: when an offer beats the market, ask who is paying for the difference. Either the product is risky, or the offer isn’t real. The allegation here is the second.
Move 3: Show them a photograph of the asset.
Investigators say departments were shown forged FD receipts while the real money was moving through shell companies. Remember our lesson: the receipt is a copy. Nobody, it seems, asked to see the asset in the bank’s own system.
Move 4: Make the money move quietly.
Here is what stuns me as a banker. None of this looks sophisticated.
Shell firms were reportedly set up using the KYC documents of employees, drivers and relatives. A person said to have worked for Rishi told investigators he signed many blank cheques and RTGS forms on Rishi’s instructions. The mobile numbers registered on one shell firm’s accounts were Rishi’s own, so the alerts went to him.
On the government side, cheques and debit notes carried the forged signature of a senior IAS officer, even though the department says it doesn’t use cheques for this scheme. The CBI alleges Rishi personally authorised at least 25 fraudulent debit transactions totalling ₹187.35 crore.
And one detail made me stop reading. One cheque reportedly carried ₹2.50 crore in figures but “Twenty-Five Crores” in words, and the bank honoured it for ₹25 crore.
Did you notice? It is the same extra zero as in my RTGS story. ₹2.5 lakh became ₹25 lakh on my screen. ₹2.50 crore became ₹25 crore on that cheque.
Here is something many people don’t know. Under Section 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if a cheque shows different amounts in figures and in words, the amount in words is the one that counts. So legally, paying the amount in words can be defended.
But banking runs on more than the law. It runs on caution. In my experience, when the words and figures don’t match, or when there is overwriting on a cheque, we didn’t simply pay. We asked the customer for a fresh cheque. The reason is simple: a mismatch can be a sign of fraud. Banks even have a standard return reason for this: “amount in words and figures differ.”
So I am not saying the law was broken. I am saying that for a mismatch of this size, on a cheque of this size, prudence says: stop, and ask for a new one. That small pause is all the control asks for.
Move 5: Wash it through gold
In my opinion, gold is India’s oldest laundromat. The CBI alleges shell firms received invoices for gold that was never delivered. The gold was sold in the open market, and the cash went to Rishi’s associates. An employee of the jeweller reportedly told investigators he collected more than ₹155 crore in cash from bullion traders and handed it to Rishi’s couriers.
Then came the reward. CBI sources say a significant portion of the cash was given to government officials. The CBI also alleges the money paid for property, luxury hotels and foreign trips.
Where Was Everyone?
This is the question I can’t put down.
The ED says the scam ran for about a year. And people did notice things. A senior bank executive has reportedly told the CBI that he raised concerns months before the FIR was filed, and an internal inquiry later led to two firings. The Labour Welfare Board was told in October 2025 that its deposit didn’t exist. Yet the public disclosure came only in February 2026.
In my view, this wasn’t a failure to see. It was a failure to act, and that is the more dangerous kind.
It’s Not Only About the Money
Think about what this money was for. One account was meant for the Mukhya Mantri Grameen Awas Yojna 2.0 rural housing scheme, with ₹50 crore placed at IDFC FIRST Bank. The Labour Welfare Board’s money came from a cess collected for workers’ schemes such as marriage assistance and scholarships.
The totals depend on who is counting. The bank first disclosed about ₹590 crore. The ED later told a special court the fraud was ₹645.59 crore. The CBI now refers to a ₹657-crore scam. The bank announced it had honoured claims of ₹583 crore.
So the departments got their money back. What no transfer can return is the public’s trust.
The Law, in Plain Words
I am a banker, not a lawyer. But a few legal ideas help you read this case properly.
Allegation, chargesheet, conviction. These are three different things. An allegation is a claim. A chargesheet is the investigators’ report to a court, saying they believe there is enough evidence to try someone. A conviction comes only after a trial, if the court finds guilt proved. Until then, every accused person is presumed innocent. Everything I have written about named people sits at the first two stages.
Who is investigating? Haryana’s state vigilance bureau began the probe. On 9 April 2026, the state handed the investigation to the CBI. The Enforcement Directorate runs a parallel probe under India’s money-laundering law, the PMLA, and has told a special court that Rishi and Abhay Kumar were arrested under that law on 11 May.
Why officials need “sanction”. When public servants are involved, investigators generally need the government’s approval before they can examine decisions taken in their official duties, under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Reports say Haryana has approved this for five IAS officers, with a fresh request pending for three more. That is a legal step, not a finding of guilt.
What offences are mentioned? In this family of cases, reports mention cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, corruption, and money laundering. The exact charges against each person are in the chargesheets, and I have not tried to list them here.
Your rights as a customer. If something looks wrong with your account or deposit, complain to the bank in writing and keep the acknowledgement. If the bank doesn’t reply within 30 days, rejects your complaint, or you are not satisfied, you can take it to the RBI Ombudsman through the RBI’s complaint portal, cms.rbi.org.in. It is free. The RBI revised the ombudsman rules in 2026, and the time limit for filing may be shorter than under the 2021 scheme, so check the current limit on the RBI’s website before you wait. You can also report a suspected fraud to the police.
Why You Should Care
You may be thinking, “I don’t have a government account, so this isn’t about me.” I’d like to gently disagree.
First, this wasn’t a one-off. In March 2026, Panchkula’s municipal corporation found about ₹150 crore of its fixed deposits missing at a Kotak Mahindra Bank branch. And back in 2025, an ICICI Bank relationship manager in Kota allegedly took ₹4.58 crore from 110 accounts belonging to 41 customers. The sizes differ, but the pattern repeats: a trusted insider, a product people don’t question, and an alert nobody watches.
Second, your savings depend on the same trust. Your FD is safe only if the bank’s record says it exists. Very few of us ever check.
My Simple Checklist
Here is what I would do, as a banker and as a customer:
- Check every FD in your net banking or statement, not just on the paper receipt.
- Make sure the mobile number and email for alerts are yours. If an alert goes to someone else, it is useless.
- Be suspicious of any rate far above the market. A miracle is usually a warning sign.
- Never sign blank cheques or forms, for anyone, however well you know them.
- If something looks wrong, complain in writing. If the bank doesn’t resolve it, you can go to the RBI Ombudsman.
One Last Thought
Go back to those two numbers: ₹50 crore, and ₹7,619.24.
The agencies and the courts will decide who built that gap. My job, as someone who spent ten years behind the counter, is to tell you what I wish every customer knew: a piece of paper and a friendly face are not proof. The bank’s own record is.
That afternoon at our branch, one extra zero showed me how quickly a number can change between two clicks. Banks must make their checks real. And we, as customers, should keep asking one small, polite question: can you show me where it says that in your system?
About this article: This is an opinion-based explanatory article written for public awareness. Facts are drawn from the sources listed below, and allegations are attributed to the agencies that made them. Nobody named has been convicted, and every accused person is presumed innocent. Where the writer gives an opinion, it is marked as such. Corrections from readers and from anyone named are welcome.
References:
- Sushil Manav, ThePrint, “3 women, 3 desks, one Rs 645-crore bank fraud at IDFC: What CBI says they did—and what they did not do,” 7 October 2026. https://theprint.in
- The Print, “Inside Rs 590-cr Haryana IDFC public funds scam—ex-banker with Dubai flat, shell firms, suitcases of cash,” 9 May 2026. https://theprint.in
- ThePrint, “IDFC fraud wasn’t Rs 570 cr. ED probe reveals Rs 645 cr were siphoned from Haryana govt accounts.” https://theprint.in
- ThePrint, “Haryana’s Rs 645-crore IDFC bank fraud probe reaches the IAS, 8 officers in CBI crosshairs.” https://theprint.in
- ThePrint, “IDFC First Rs 645-cr fraud: Bank exec raised alarm months before FIR; internal inquiry led to 2 firings.” https://theprint.in
- The Tribune, “IDFC-AU Small Bank scam: Rs 329 crore converted into cash through gold transactions, says CBI.” https://www.tribuneindia.com
- The Tribune, “IDFC First Bank scam: Embezzled Haryana govt funds spent on dancers; bail plea of ‘mastermind’ dismissed.” https://www.tribuneindia.com
- The420.in, “ED Tells Court ₹203 Crore Was Routed Through Shell Firm and Jewellers in IDFC First Bank Scam.” https://the420.in
- The Tribune, “ICICI Bank relationship manager swindles Rs 4.58 crore from customer accounts, loses most of it in stocks.” https://www.tribuneindia.com
- Enforcement Directorate, press release, 13 March 2026, on searches in the IDFC First Bank scam. https://www.enforcementdirectorate.gov.in
- IDFC FIRST Bank, “IDFC FIRST Bank affirms trust with ₹583 Crore Government Payment,” press release, 24 February 2026. https://www.idfcfirst.bank.in
- Wikipedia, “Haryana Government accounts fraud” (timeline and names, compiled from Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, The Hindu and others). https://en.wikipedia.org
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 18 (amount stated differently in figures and words).
- Reserve Bank of India, Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, and RBI complaint portal. https://cms.rbi.org.in