NewKerala.com

RBI Closes Rs 4.1 Crore FEMA Case Against Vikram Mundlur After Compounding

The Reserve Bank of India has issued a compounding order in a Foreign Exchange Management Act case against Vikram Mundlur, involving contraventions of Rs 4.1 crore. The order, passed after the Enforcement Directorate issued a 'no objection', required a one-time payment of approximately Rs 3.6 lakh. This action results in the termination of all adjudication proceedings against Mundlur under FEMA provisions. The case highlights the mechanism under Section 15 of FEMA that allows for the regularization of violations without prolonged litigation.

Key Points: RBI Compounds Rs 4.1 Crore FEMA Violations for Vikram Mundlur

  • RBI issues compounding order
  • Case involved Rs 4.1 crore FEMA contraventions
  • ED provided no objection for settlement
  • One-time penalty of Rs 3.6 lakh paid
  • Legal proceedings now terminated
2 min read

RBI compounds FEMA violations in Rs 4.1 crore Mundlur case

RBI terminates FEMA adjudication against Vikram Mundlur after a compounding order and penalty payment, following ED's no-objection.

"This has resulted in termination of adjudication proceedings... No further litigation will be carried out in the case. - Enforcement Directorate"

New Delhi, April 2

The Reserve Bank of India has issued a compounding order on February 20 this year under Section 15 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, in the Rs 4.1 crore case filed against Vikram Mundlur, which has resulted in the termination of adjudication proceedings against him for contraventions of provisions of FEMA, 1999.

The order has been passed by the RBI after issuance of a "no objection" statement by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) which was investigating the case, according to an official statement issued on Thursday.

Accordingly, the RBI, on the basis of no objection issued by the ED, has compounded the contraventions vide compounding order dated February 20, 2026, with a one-time payment of Rs 3, 60,495.

"This has resulted in termination of adjudication proceedings with respect to aforementioned contravention under the provisions of FEMA against the person. No further litigation will be carried out in the case," the statement said.

Section 15 provides a mechanism for individuals or companies to voluntarily admit to a violation of FEMA regulations, pay a penalty, and regularise the contravention without undergoing lengthy litigation or legal proceedings.

In this case, based on the credible information received, investigation was taken up by ED under the provisions of FEMA.

"After completion of investigation, the ED filed a complaint under Section 16 of FEMA before the adjudicating authority pointing out the contravention of FEMA norms involving an amount of covering Rs 4,13,99,368, for which compounding has been done by RBI," the ED statement said.

As per the provisions of FEMA, the adjudication proceedings were initiated by the adjudicating authority by issuance of show cause notice dated January 30, 2023, under Section 16 of FEMA against Vikram Mundlur.

Mundlur then filed an application before the RBI for compounding of the contraventions under FEMA as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Act.

"On reference from the Reserve Bank of India, the ED issued a no objection for the compounding in line with the true spirit of the Act," the statement added.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priyanka N
Actually, this is a good mechanism. Long court cases drain resources for both the government and the individual. This way, the contravention is admitted, a penalty is paid, and the matter is closed. Saves judicial time and allows businesses to move on. 👍
A
Arjun K
The key detail is the ED's "no objection". If the enforcement agency, after investigation, is okay with compounding, then it's probably not a case of deliberate fraud or money laundering. Might be a technical violation. The system worked as intended.
S
Sarah B
Interesting to see the RBI and ED coordinating. Often we hear about turf wars between agencies. Good to see a pragmatic approach that avoids unnecessary litigation, provided the violation wasn't malicious.
K
Karthik V
The article says the person voluntarily admitted. That's important. If you hide and get caught, you should face the full music. If you come forward to regularise, a lenient route makes sense. More clarity on what kind of violations qualify would be helpful.
N
Nikhil C
While I understand the efficiency argument, such a small penalty on a large sum sets a wrong precedent. It feels like the law is harsh on small defaults (like in banks) but gentle on big ones. Transparency in how the penalty amount is calculated is needed.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50