Enforcement Directorate vs Vivo India executives

Multiple cases are pending against AAP politician Satyendar Jain involving CCTV project tenders, sewage tenders, and money laundering investigations. The Enforcement Directorate filed a chargesheet in 2025 against Jain and 13 others, with four additional cases filed by different agencies.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a prosecution complaint (chargesheet) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi, naming Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Sam Pitroda, Suman Dubey, and others, alleging laundering of proceeds of crime derived from the alleged fraudulent takeover of Associated Journals Limited (AJL) properties worth over ₹2,000 crore by Young Indian Pvt. Ltd. Special Judge Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Courts declined to take cognizance of the complaint in December 2025, holding it was not maintainable, while permitting the ED to continue its probe. The ED has challenged this order before the Delhi High Court, which issued notice to the accused on 22 December 2025. All persons named remain accused and are presumed innocent unless a court judgment holds otherwise.

The Coal Block Allocation cases, originating from the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (W.P.(Crl.) 120/2012), concern alleged irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks between 1993 and 2011 under the 'Government Dispensation' route, which the Supreme Court declared arbitrary and illegal. CBI has prosecuted numerous accused — including former Ministry of Coal officials and private companies — before Special Courts in Delhi — the Directorate of Enforcement has simultaneously pursued PMLA cases. As of 2025–2026, trials remain ongoing before Special Courts in Delhi (Rouse Avenue Courts), the Supreme Court continues to supervise and reconstitute benches for batch SLP hearings, the Delhi High Court has ruled on key PMLA questions, and individual sub-cases have seen both acquittals and discharges. All accused persons are presumed innocent unless a court has delivered a final conviction.