The Sandesara Settlement: Justice Deferred or Justice Denied?

In a country where millions fight lengthy court battles for years over meagre sums, two billionaire brothers - Nitin and Chetan Sandesara - have managed to settle one of India’s biggest banking fraud cases by simply writing a cheque.

On November 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment that has sent ripples through the legal and financial circles. It ruled that the Sandesara brothers, founders of Sterling Biotech and accused of defrauding Indian banks of over ₹5,383 crore, could walk free from all criminal charges if they paid ₹5,100 crore by December 17, 2025. That’s it. No jail time. No trial. No formal criminal conviction. Just payment, and you’re out.

It’s a case that has re-ignited India’s long-standing debate: Can money buy justice? Or was this simply the best outcome available under complex global circumstances?

The Making of a Billion-Dollar Fraud

To understand the controversy, it’s important to rewind to the early 2000s when Sterling Biotech, a Gujarat-based pharmaceutical company, rose quickly in the Indian business scene. Run by the Sandesara family, the company secured massive loans from a consortium of Indian banks, led by Andhra Bank, with others like SBI and UCO Bank on board. By the time the dust settled, the group had borrowed over ₹5,383 crore.

What followed, according to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), was not just business mismanagement, but a systematic siphoning of funds. Investigations revealed the Sandesaras had allegedly used shell companies, both in India and abroad, to divert funds for personal gain. The money went into building a vast oil business in Nigeria, acquiring private jets, and purchasing luxury real estate. When repayment time came and loans turned into NPAs (Non-Performing Assets), the brothers vanished - fleeing India using fake passports and taking refuge in Nigeria by 2017.

The Long Arm of the Law - But Not Quite Long Enough

The Indian authorities acted swiftly, at least on paper. The ED attached and seized assets worth ₹14,500 crore, including Nigerian oil fields, real estate, luxury cars, and aircraft. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed criminal charges. Interpol notices were issued. But none of it could bring the brothers back to India.

Nigeria, lacking an extradition treaty with India, refused to send them back. Repeated attempts to secure their return failed. Legal proceedings stalled. Meanwhile, the brothers continued running their oil business in Nigeria, reportedly producing 50,000 barrels a day - an operation that likely made them wealthier than ever.

Then Came the Supreme Court's Bombshell

Faced with the stalemate, the Sandesaras made a proposal: let us pay ₹5,100 crore, and in return, drop the criminal proceedings. On November 19, the Supreme Court accepted this proposal, giving them until December 17 to complete the payment.

This ruling has opened a Pandora’s box. Supporters argue it’s a practical decision. Critics say it’s nothing less than legalized impunity.

Supporters Say: “This Is Pragmatism, Not Privilege”

From one perspective, the court’s decision may seem like a triumph of practical thinking over idealistic justice. Nigeria’s refusal to extradite meant there was no way to prosecute the accused. Criminal trials can take a decade to complete, even when the accused are present. In this case, the possibility of securing a conviction was close to zero.

Supporters also point out that recovering ₹5,100 crore in cash today is far better than chasing a ghost for another ten years. Banks, after all, are not moral philosophers—they need to recover public money. Every rupee returned is a rupee that strengthens the financial system and gives depositors some measure of relief.

Some also argue that for a billionaire, being forced to pay ₹5,100 crore is punishment enough. Money is, after all, power. Taking it away is no small penalty.

Critics Say: “This Is a Blueprint for White-Collar Crime”

But the critics are louder - and more numerous. They argue that this settlement sets a terrifying precedent: that if you’re rich enough, smart enough to hide your money overseas, and lucky enough to flee to a non-extradition country, Indian law will eventually forgive you in exchange for a discounted cheque.

Let’s look at the numbers. According to estimates using standard banking interest rates over 11 years, the total amount owed by the Sandesaras could exceed ₹21,891 crore. If they’re paying ₹5,100 crore—and have already deposited another ₹3,507 crore in earlier legal proceedings - the total recovery amounts to only about 44.8% of what they truly owe. That’s a write-off of nearly ₹12,000 crore.

Even more troubling: the ₹14,500 crore in seized assets - such as Nigerian oil operations - are not being liquidated to repay dues. If the Sandesaras pay ₹5,100 crore and get their assets back, they’ve not only avoided jail, but may walk away with a net gain of ₹9,400 crore.

In simpler terms: They win. The system loses.

A Dangerous Two-Tier Justice System

The Sandesara settlement exposes a deeper rot in the Indian justice system: the growing divide between how justice is served to the rich and the poor. A street-level fraudster who cheats someone out of ₹5 lakh will likely spend years in jail. But here we have billionaires, accused of defrauding Indian taxpayers and banks, potentially walking free with their empire intact.

Critics argue that this undermines the deterrent effect of criminal law. If high-value economic crimes can be settled through cheque books instead of courtrooms, what stops others from doing the same?

Moreover, it raises serious concerns under statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, both of which were enacted precisely to deal with cases like this. The law, as it stands, does not permit compounding of such offences. The Supreme Court has essentially stepped beyond the legislative intent—perhaps invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142—but doing so in a way that invites serious legal and constitutional scrutiny.

So What Happens Now?

If the ₹5,100 crore is paid by December 17, all pending criminal cases against the Sandesaras will be quashed. Their seized assets may be released. And unless the government challenges this in some creative way—perhaps through a curative petition or legislation - this becomes the new playbook for India’s white-collar fugitives.

Already, legal circles are abuzz with speculation that other accused like Nirav Modi and Vijay Mallya may cite this decision in their own legal strategies. The question is no longer whether this case is unique, but whether it opens a floodgate.

Final Thoughts: What Kind of Justice Do We Want?

At its core, the Sandesara case forces us to choose between two competing values: pragmatic recovery and principled accountability.

Do we want immediate financial compensation, even if it means letting fraudsters walk free? Or do we want to uphold the rule of law - even if it means longer battles, fewer recoveries, and uncertain outcomes?

There are no easy answers. But one thing is clear: justice in India, especially in financial crime, now seems to have a price tag.