A decade of financial crime enforcement data tabled in the Lok Sabha reveals a stark mismatch between the explosive rise in investigative action and the limited judicial outcomes that followed. The ministry of finance (MoF) disclosed that the directorate of enforcement (ED) registered 6,444 enforcement case information reports (ECIRs) between FY14–15 and November 2025 and carried out an extraordinary 11,106 searches—outpacing even the income-tax department’s (ITD) 9,657 group searches over the same period. Yet, despite this sweeping expansion in raids and investigations, special PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) courts delivered judgements on the merits of money-laundering charges in only 56 cases in more than 11 years, securing convictions in 53 of them involving just 121 accused persons. The numbers lay bare a system where enforcement activity has skyrocketed, but conclusive legal outcomes remain strikingly rare.
The figures were revealed in Lok Sabha in response to a parliamentary question seeking comprehensive state- and year-wise details on cases filed, charge-sheets submitted, raids conducted and the number of individuals accused, under trial, acquitted or convicted. However, the ministry clarified that state-wise data is not maintained centrally, making it impossible to determine whether specific regions or political constituencies bore disproportionate scrutiny. This absence of granularity is striking given the wider public debate about the ED’s perceived selectivity in recent years.
Even without state-level data, the sheer scale of enforcement activity points to a dramatic shift in how financial crime is pursued in India. ED’s searches rose from just 46 in FY14–15 to 2,600 in FY23–24, reaching 2,267 searches by November 2025 in the current financial year alone. This represents roughly a 50-fold jump in annual raids over the decade. Such a surge indicates a significantly more aggressive operational stance, but the ministry’s reply does not explain whether this rise stems from policy changes, administrative prioritisation or broader political directives.
Despite the ballooning number of ECIRs and raids, ED’s prosecution record shows minimal progress in securing timely judicial closure. With only 56 cases judged on merits since 2014, fewer than 1% of the ECIRs registered in the period have reached final adjudication.
ED’s conviction rate—94.64%—appears formidable at first glance but must be viewed in the context of the extremely small sample of cases that reached verdicts. The overwhelming majority of cases remain pending at various stages, underscoring systemic delays in trial commencement and completion under the PMLA framework.
ITD’s prosecution data paints its own complex picture. Across 13,877 prosecution cases filed since FY14–15, there have been 522 convictions, 963 acquittals and 3,345 withdrawals. The large number of withdrawals—more than six times the total ED convictions—suggests persistent challenges in building sustainable tax prosecution cases or shifts in enforcement policy that lead to cases being abandoned mid-way. Acquittals also remain significantly high in several years, hinting at evidentiary or procedural insufficiencies.
Data submitted by Pankaj Chaudhary, minister of state for finance to Parliament, show that 2,416 prosecution complaints and supplementary complaints filed by the ITD over the decade involved 16,404 individuals or entities. However, the ministry did not provide details on case pendency, time taken for trials to commence, or the number of investigations completed or closed without prosecution. Several specific questions raised by the MP about charge sheets, closure reports and cases where trials have not yet begun therefore remain unanswered.
The wide swings in year-wise prosecution numbers further cloud the picture. ITD filings spiked to 4,527 in FY17–18 and 3,512 in FY18–19 before plunging to just 173 in FY20–21. ED case registrations also fluctuated sharply. Without explanations, these fluctuations suggest shifting administrative priorities rather than consistent long-term enforcement strategies.
The data, when read together, reveal an enforcement ecosystem that has expanded its footprint dramatically but still struggles to convert raids, seizures and case registrations into steady trial progress and judicial outcomes. The absence of state-wise data and lack of clarity on investigation timelines limit the ability of lawmakers and the public to understand whether enforcement actions are fair, proportionate or effective.
With ED and ITD increasingly at the centre of political and legal debates, the disclosures highlight the urgent need for greater transparency, including annual public reporting on pendency, closures and trial progress.
Without such accountability, India’s financial crime enforcement apparatus risks becoming a system heavily weighted towards investigation rather than resolution, measured more by the scale of its raids than by its delivery of justice.
ED has been used as a weapon by this party, in a shameless manner, to hobble, attack, defame, its political opponents.
When will the party be held to account for misuse of the government machinery for its political aims?