In a landmark development, the Supreme Court of India has approved a massive $570 million settlement deal to drop criminal charges against fugitive billionaire brothers Nitin and Chetan Sandesara. The decision marks a significant turn in one of India's most high-profile economic offense cases.
The Settlement Agreement
The Supreme Court agreed to the settlement on November 24, 2025, bringing partial closure to a lengthy legal battle. The Sandesara brothers, who have been absconding from Indian authorities, proposed the substantial financial settlement to resolve the criminal proceedings against them.
This case represents one of the first major applications of India's 2018 fugitive economic offenders law. The legislation specifically allows for the freezing and confiscation of assets belonging to individuals who flee the country to avoid prosecution for financial crimes exceeding 1 billion rupees.
Legal Status of the Sandesara Brothers
Nitin and Chetan Sandesara figure among only 14 individuals designated as fugitive economic offenders under the special 2018 law. Their case has been closely watched as a test of India's ability to tackle high-value economic crimes and recover stolen assets.
The brothers have been facing multiple criminal charges related to alleged bank fraud and financial irregularities. Their offshore movements and attempts to avoid Indian jurisdiction have complicated the legal proceedings over several years.
Implications of the Settlement
The Supreme Court's acceptance of the $570 million settlement sets an important precedent for how India handles cases involving economic offenders who have fled the country. While the financial recovery is substantial, the case also raises questions about accountability for wealthy individuals accused of financial crimes.
The settlement amount of $570 million represents one of the largest recoveries in India's history concerning economic offenses. The funds are expected to be returned to affected financial institutions and stakeholders.
Legal experts are analyzing the broader implications of this settlement for future cases involving fugitive economic offenders. The decision demonstrates the judiciary's pragmatic approach to recovering substantial assets while acknowledging the challenges of extraditing individuals from foreign jurisdictions.
