The Man Who Cried Pauper in London — and Hid Millions in Switzerland

Anil Ambani declared zero net worth before a UK court in 2020 — yet India’s Income Tax Department says he held ₹814 crore in undisclosed Swiss accounts. The Bombay High Court’s interim stay continues

Ai-generated representational image.

“No coercise measures interim relief”

On Tuesday, June 10, 2026, the Bombay High Court admitted a writ petition filed by industrialist Anil Ambani challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. A bench of Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh Pooniwalla granted him interim protection from prosecution and penalty until the petition is finally disposed of. The Union Government has been directed to file its affidavit in response. The matter will be taken up for final hearing in due course.

This is an entirely legitimate exercise of the High Court’s judicial review jurisdiction. Constitutional challenges to legislation must be heard. Interim protection during such hearings is standard practice, and the court has acted with full propriety within its established powers. That said, the broader circumstances of this case raise questions of profound public interest — about the architecture of the law, the pace of our justice system, and the extraordinary contradictions in Anil Ambani’s own declarations across different courts and different continents. Those questions deserve a frank public airing.

A Tale of Two Declarations

In 2020, Anil Ambani appeared via videolink before the Commercial Division of the High Court of England and Wales in London, facing a claim of $716.9 million from three Chinese state-controlled banks — the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Development Bank, and the Export-Import Bank of China — over an alleged personal guarantee on loans to Reliance Communications. Ambani’s position, stated in sworn court filings, was unambiguous: “The value of my investments has collapsed. My net worth is zero after taking into account my liabilities. In summary, I do not hold any meaningful assets which can be liquidated for the purposes of these proceedings.” His barrister told the court simply: “Quite simply, he was a wealthy businessman, now he is not.”

The London court did not accept that claim. Justice Waksman ruled he did not believe Ambani’s net worth was zero, or that his family would not assist him when “push came to shove.” Justice Nigel Teare subsequently ordered Ambani to pay $716,917,681.51 within 21 days — roughly ₹5,400 crore at the then prevailing exchange rate.

Two years later, in August 2022, India’s Income Tax Department issued a notice to Ambani for allegedly concealing over ₹814 crore in two Swiss bank accounts — linked to beneficial ownership of a Bahamas-based entity called Diamond Trust and a British Virgin Islands company called Northern Atlantic Trading Unlimited (NATU). The tax liability on these undisclosed assets was assessed at over ₹420 crore. The department charged him with “wilful” evasion — the highest threshold of intentional concealment under the law.

The accounts in question relate to assessment years 2006–07 and 2010–11 — the very years when Ambani was, by his own earlier admission to the London court, worth “more than USD 7 billion.” The contradiction is not merely embarrassing. It is legally critical. The London court’s worldwide asset disclosure order required Ambani to declare all assets exceeding $100,000. Swiss bank accounts allegedly holding the equivalent of over $100 million self-evidently fell within that threshold. Either the declaration to the London court was incomplete — a matter of considerable gravity in a foreign jurisdiction — or the Indian Income Tax Department’s assessment is wrong. Both cannot simultaneously be true.

A Swiss court, in a subsequent proceeding, directed Swiss banks to reveal account details of Anil Ambani, his wife, and his two sons — suggesting that the concealment, if proven, extended across the immediate family.

The Legal Architecture: Stronger Than It Looks

Ambani’s constitutional challenge rests on two planks. First, that the Black Money Act, enacted in 2015, cannot apply to transactions of 2006–07 and 2010–11, as Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars prosecution under a law not in existence at the time of the alleged offence. Second, that certain provisions of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution.

On the first, there is genuine legal debate. The Karnataka High Court, in Dhanashree Ravindra Pandit v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (June 2024), held that criminal prosecution under Section 50 of the Act for non-disclosure relating to pre-2015 years was constitutionally impermissible under Article 20. The Income Tax Department has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging that ruling, and the matter is pending.

However, the constitutional shield of Article 20 protects against criminal prosecution and penal consequences — it does not extinguish the underlying tax liability. The assessment of ₹814 crore and the consequent tax demand of ₹420 crore are fundamentally fiscal in nature, not penal. Parliament’s power to levy taxes retrospectively is well-established. The Bombay High Court itself has clarified that the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can proceed and orders can be passed thereon — the stay only covers coercive action. The tax demand therefore continues to tick, with interest.

Moreover, the argument that the concealment was a one-time act in 2006 ignores a critical dimension: the continuing nature of non-disclosure. Every year that Ambani allegedly held undisclosed foreign assets and filed income tax returns without declaring them was a fresh act of non-disclosure. Post-July 1, 2015 — when the Black Money Act came into force — each such annual non-disclosure is a new and independent offence entirely outside the retrospectivity argument.

What Needs to Be Done to Expedite

The interim protection granted by the Bombay High Court is not a clean slate. It is a pause. But pauses in high-stakes financial cases involving public money have a way of becoming permanent through adjournments, interlocutory contests, and the sheer grinding weight of the docket. There are several urgent steps that should be taken to ensure this case moves to conclusion with appropriate speed.

First, the Supreme Court must consolidate. The Karnataka HC ruling in Dhanashree Pandit, the pending SLP before the Supreme Court, and the multiple writ petitions before different High Courts — including the Bombay HC — all turn on the same core constitutional question of the Black Money Act’s retrospective application. The Supreme Court should exercise its powers under Article 139A to withdraw all these petitions and hear the constitutional question definitively. A multiplicity of proceedings potentially reaching contradictory conclusions serves no one — least of all the Revenue.

Second, the Union Government must file its counter-affidavit promptly. In the past, Government affidavits in constitutional cases have been delayed by months and years, inadvertently extending interim protection indefinitely. CBDT and the Ministry of Finance should treat this as a priority filing. The affidavit must address not only the constitutional validity arguments but specifically the continuing offence doctrine and the post-2015 non-disclosure dimensions.

Third, the civil tax proceedings must run in parallel. The CIT (Appeals) proceedings are not stayed. They must be prosecuted vigorously and expeditiously by the Revenue. A confirmed appellate order of tax assessment, even while criminal prosecution is paused, creates a legally enforceable demand. Asset recovery under the tax law — including attachment proceedings — does not require the criminal track to conclude.

Fourth, the Enforcement Directorate’s jurisdiction must be examined. Offences under the Black Money Act are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. Where undisclosed foreign assets constitute proceeds of crime, the ED has independent jurisdiction to attach and confiscate — jurisdiction not co-extensive with the criminal prosecution track stayed by the High Court. This avenue deserves active consideration.

Fifth, the cases must be cross-referenced. The ED has already registered a fresh case against Ambani and RCom for an alleged ₹2,929 crore loan fraud with SBI. The money trail in that case and the Swiss account holdings may intersect. Integrated investigation across the Black Money Act, PMLA, and the bank fraud cases could yield a more complete picture of the flow of funds.

The Bank Fraud Parallel: Arrests, Chargesheets, and Custody

The Black Money Act case does not exist in isolation. It is one thread in an increasingly dense web of criminal and civil proceedings surrounding Anil Ambani and the Reliance ADA Group. And while the Bombay High Court’s stay shields Ambani from prosecution under the Black Money Act for the moment, the agencies have been closing in on multiple fronts simultaneously — and with tangible results.

On January 29, 2026, the Enforcement Directorate arrested Punit Garg, a former Executive Director of Reliance Communications, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The arrest followed a CBI First Information Report dated August 21, 2025, which named Reliance Communications, its promoter Anil Dhirubhai Ambani, and others for allegedly defrauding a consortium of public sector banks of over ₹40,000 crore. Garg had served in multiple senior capacities at RCom — as President handling Global Enterprise Business, President (Regulatory Affairs), and subsequently as Executive Director and non-Executive Director between 2006 and 2025. The ED accused him of involvement in the “acquisition, possession, concealment, layering and dissipation of proceeds of crime” generated from the bank fraud. The agency filed its chargesheet before the Rouse Avenue Special Court in Delhi in March 2026. His bail plea was rejected by the court in April 2026.

In a parallel development, former Group Managing Director of RCom, Amitabh Jhunjhunwala — who oversaw critical functions including corporate finance, banking, and utilisation of funds — was arrested by the CBI in early June 2026 and produced before a Mumbai court on June 1, 2026. He was lodged in Arthur Road Jail. The CBI has charged him with directing the management and utilisation of loan funds in a manner that caused wrongful losses to the banks. The CBI had filed its first formal chargesheet in the RCom matter on May 29, 2026, naming 16 accused parties — the company itself, five senior RCom executives, and ten banking officials — for criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal misappropriation under the IPC, and criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The scale of the alleged bank fraud is staggering. The SBI alone claims a direct loss of ₹2,929 crore. A consortium of 11 public sector banks led by SBI has collectively incurred alleged losses of ₹6,015 crore. The total financial exposure toward RCom across 17 public sector banks stands at ₹19,694 crore. In February 2026, the CBI registered a further fresh case against Ambani and RCom for allegedly cheating Bank of Baroda of over ₹2,220 crore, conducting searches at Ambani’s residence and RCom’s offices and recovering documents connected with the loan transactions.

The Bombay High Court itself, in February 2026, quashed a single-bench order that had temporarily stayed the bank fraud proceedings, with a Division Bench terming that order “illegal and perverse.” Earlier, in October 2025, the High Court upheld SBI’s classification of Ambani’s and RCom’s accounts as fraudulent, finding no infirmity in the bank’s order.

This is the wider context in which the Black Money Act interim stay must be read. The pattern is one of alleged systematic deception: of banks, of regulatory authorities, of Indian courts, and — as the London proceedings suggest — of a foreign judicial system as well. The arrest of senior executives who worked directly under Ambani, the filing of chargesheets, and the custodial interrogations indicate that the investigative agencies have moved well beyond the preliminary stage. The money trail is being followed. The question is whether it will be followed all the way to its source.

The Larger Principle

The Black Money Act was enacted by Parliament to signal that India’s era of tolerance for offshore concealment by its wealthiest citizens was over. It was backed by India’s accession to the Common Reporting Standard and automatic exchange of financial information with Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, and over a hundred other jurisdictions. The information era has made concealment harder. The legal framework is in place. What remains is the will and the speed of enforcement.

No court’s interim order — however proper in law — should become a permanent shelter. The constitutional questions raised deserve serious adjudication, and they will receive it. But in the meantime, the parallel civil and PMLA tracks must be pursued without hesitation.

The man who told London he had nothing, and who now faces Indian charges of concealing Swiss millions, owes the public — and two separate judicial systems — a complete accounting. That accounting must come.

The writer is a retired IAS officer of the 1984 Punjab cadre who superannuated as Special Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, and is the Founder-Editor of The KBS Chronicle.

DISCLAIMERS

1. This article is based entirely on publicly reported court proceedings, official Income Tax Department notices as reported in the media, and published judgments of courts in India and the United Kingdom. No unpublished or confidential material has been relied upon.

2. The interim protection granted by the Bombay High Court to the petitioner is a lawful and proper exercise of judicial review jurisdiction. Nothing in this article questions the correctness, propriety, or integrity of the court’s order, which is entirely consistent with established legal principles governing constitutional challenges.

3. This article does not express any opinion on the guilt or innocence of any named individual. All allegations referred to herein are as yet unproven and are subject to adjudication by competent courts. Every individual is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

4. Observations regarding proceedings before the High Court of England and Wales are based on publicly available court filings and judgments as reported by credible media organisations.

5. The writer has no personal, financial, or professional interest in the outcome of any of the proceedings discussed herein.