The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by UK-based arms consultant Sanjay Bhandari, upholding a trial court order that declared him a “fugitive economic offender” (FEO). The ruling marks a significant victory for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), as the FEO designation empowers the agency to confiscate Bhandari’s vast assets, valued at crores of rupees, in connection with an ongoing money laundering investigation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the brief but decisive order, stating, “Appeal dismissed.”
The legal saga began in February 2017 when the ED registered a criminal case against Sanjay Bhandari (63) and others under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This action followed an Income Tax department chargesheet filed under the anti-black money law of 2015.
Bhandari originally fled to London in 2016, shortly after the I-T department conducted raids at his Delhi properties. In 2020, the ED filed its first formal chargesheet against him. Central to the agency’s probe are Bhandari’s alleged links with Robert Vadra, the businessman husband of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra.
On July 5, 2025, a trial court formally declared Bhandari a fugitive economic offender following a plea by the ED. Bhandari subsequently challenged this classification in the High Court.
Bhandari’s legal team argued that the FEO designation was legally flawed. They contended that since a UK court had previously ruled against his extradition to India, his stay in the United Kingdom was entirely legal.
“Our client’s stay could not be called illegal in the UK as he has a legal right to reside there, and the government of India is bound by the judgment of the UK court,” his counsel argued. They maintained that declaring a individual a “fugitive” while they are legally residing in a foreign jurisdiction under a court’s protection is a legal contradiction.
The Enforcement Directorate, however, sought the FEO status to facilitate the attachment and confiscation of Bhandari’s properties in India and abroad, arguing that his refusal to face trial in India despite multiple summons justified the label.
In upholding the trial court’s decision, the High Court reinforced the principle that foreign legal proceedings do not insulate an individual from Indian law.
The trial court had previously observed that while the extradition attempt may have failed in the UK, it “will not make the accused an angel or immune from prosecution for the violation of Indian laws.” The High Court’s dismissal of the appeal affirms this view, concluding that the criteria for declaring an individual a fugitive economic offender under Indian statutes were satisfied regardless of the UK court’s refusal to extradite.
With the UK court having already ruled against his return, Bhandari’s prospects of returning to India to face these charges voluntarily appear virtually nullified. However, the ED now has the legal clearance to proceed with the total confiscation of his identified assets.
