Despite registering a money laundering case nearly three months ago, the Enforcement Directorate Raipur Zonal Office (ED-RPZO) has yet to initiate decisive enforcement steps in Rs 411 crore Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (CGMSC) scam—even as central records name senior officials and vendors in a high-value laundering trail. The ED-RPZO’s ECIR No. ECIR/RPRZO/03/2025, filed on 18th February 2025, was jointly signed by Assistant Director Praneet Tungana and Deputy Director Sandeep Ahuja, I.R.S., invoking Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A copy of the ECIR, accessed exclusively by The Hitavada, confirms the case’s foundation on predicate offences from SEOIACB’s FIRs that expose a sweeping public procurement scam within CGMSC.

 

The ECIR names Mayank Chaturvedi, then Managing Director of CGMSC, alongside private individuals and vendors including Vikas Agrawal, Rajkumar Agarwal, and Chandrakant Soni—all linked to contract firms that were repeatedly awarded tenders under irregular circumstances. The case focuses on forged documents, collusive tender awards, and substandard supplies under schemes including the ‘Hamar Lab’ programme, which was designed to provide free diagnostic services in rural and urban public health centres. Significantly, on April 16, the State Economic Offences Investigation Agency and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SEOIACB) filed a voluminous chargesheet of nearly 18,000 pages before the Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act) in Raipur.

 

The chargesheet formally indicted six individuals: Shashank Chopra (Director, Mokshit Medicare Pvt. Ltd.), Basant Kumar Kaushik, Kshirodra Rautia, Dr. Anil Parsai, Kamlakant Patanwar, and Deepak Kumar Bandhe, all officers associated with CGMSC operations. SEOIACB’s findings, which underpin ED’s ECIR, detail a meticulously planned conspiracy wherein the accused manipulated CGMSC’s tender mechanisms to benefit favoured vendors. Medical reagents and diagnostic machines were procured at grossly inflated rates and in excessive quantities, causing an estimated loss of Rs 550 crore to the State exchequer. The predicate offences include IPC Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and Sections 13(1)(a), 13(2), and 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). According to the ECIR, large volumes of proceeds generated through these fraudulent deals were laundered through multiple banking channels, routed via shell firms, fictitious invoices, and dummy GST records.

 

The document references forensic analyses of emails, seized digital devices, ledger trails, and vendor invoices—all of which, ED sources claim, indicate a layered and deliberate attempt to clean illicit funds. Despite this deep evidentiary base, ED-RPZO has yet to act on the file. Insiders point to the fact that both Tungana and Ahuja were routinely transferred few days later after the ECIR filing, as part of a nationwide reshuffle in the IRS cadre, disrupting case continuity across multiple zones. “This reshuffle affected core enforcement units. Officers who were building the CGMSC file were suddenly replaced. That pause at a leadership level caused bottlenecks in decision-making,” said a senior official involved in the early stages of coordination. The case is now under the charge of Joint Director Prabhakar Prabhat, recently posted to ED-RPZO. Sources confirm that he has ordered a full re-evaluation of the laundering trail, vendor contracts, and bank account scrutiny, and may initiate attachments under Section 5 of the PMLA once procedural formalities are realigned.

 

“The ECIR already lays out a blueprint of how public health schemes were exploited for profiteering and converted into money laundering pipelines. With Prabhat taking over, there is institutional pressure to move swiftly,” an official said. Yet, despite layered laundering evidence, no arrests, summons, or attachments have been announced. “The laundered money has been tracked. The loss quantified. The scam structurally proven. So where’s the action?” a retired tax enforcement officer asked pointedly.