Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
I. What is SFIO?
The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is a multi-disciplinary statutory body under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), Government of India. It is responsible for investigating and prosecuting serious and complex corporate frauds.
II. Statutory Backing
Established: Initially created by executive order in 2003, after the Enron and Satyam scams.
Statutory Status: Given under Section 211 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Jurisdiction: Investigates frauds relating to companies—especially where public interest is involved.
III. Composition of SFIO
SFIO is a multidisciplinary team comprising:
Chartered Accountants
Company Secretaries
Legal experts
Banking experts
Taxation and Capital Markets experts
IV. When is SFIO Investigation Ordered?
Under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, SFIO can be directed to investigate a company in cases of:
Fraud involving public interest.
Complexity in financial transactions.
Large-scale manipulation of records.
Other cases as deemed fit by the Central Government.
V. Powers of SFIO
Powers of Arrest – Granted under Section 212(8).
Power to Summon and Examine individuals under oath.
Search and Seizure (subject to court permissions).
Override other investigating agencies like the police, SEBI, CBI, etc., in company-related fraud cases.
Prosecution in special courts under the Companies Act.
VI. Important Case Laws on SFIO
Here are five key Supreme Court and High Court cases involving SFIO, explained in detail:
1. Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Rahul Modi, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1484
Facts:
SFIO filed a complaint against Rahul Modi, relative of Nirav Modi, in the PNB scam.
The accused challenged the validity of the SFIO investigation and sought quashing of proceedings.
Held:
Supreme Court held that SFIO, being a statutory body, can investigate serious fraud independently under Section 212.
The Court upheld broad investigative powers, including filing charges and arrest.
Significance:
Reinforced the independent authority of SFIO.
Confirmed that company-related fraud investigations can be exclusively handled by SFIO without interference.
2. SFIO v. Nitin Johari & Ors., (2020) 5 SCC 140
Facts:
Nitin Johari, promoter of Bhushan Steel, was arrested by SFIO for financial fraud.
He challenged the arrest power of SFIO under Section 212(8) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Held:
Supreme Court held that the Director or Assistant Director of SFIO can arrest if the offence is cognizable.
It validated that the arrest power under the Companies Act is not contrary to the CrPC.
Significance:
Landmark case affirming arrest powers of SFIO.
Laid down that such powers must be exercised reasonably and in good faith.
3. CA R. Balakrishnan v. Union of India, Madras High Court (2016)
Facts:
SFIO conducted investigation against a CA involved in financial irregularities of a listed company.
The petitioner claimed SFIO was harassing professionals.
Held:
The High Court held that SFIO has the power to summon professionals, including Chartered Accountants, if they are part of the financial fraud.
However, the power should not be misused for coercion.
Significance:
Affirmed SFIO’s power to summon professionals under inquiry.
Ensured that principles of natural justice are followed during investigations.
4. Neeraj Singal v. SFIO, (2017) Delhi High Court
Facts:
Neeraj Singal, promoter of Bhushan Steel, was arrested by SFIO without following proper arrest procedures.
He filed a writ petition alleging illegal detention.
Held:
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief and emphasized that SFIO must comply with constitutional safeguards like:
Right to be informed of the grounds of arrest.
Right to legal counsel.
Right to be presented before a magistrate.
Significance:
Reiterated that SFIO’s powers are subject to constitutional limitations.
Arrest must not be arbitrary or in violation of Article 22 rights.
5. CBI & SFIO v. Ramesh Gelli (Global Trust Bank case)
Facts:
SFIO and CBI both investigated Global Trust Bank's fraudulent practices.
Issue arose over jurisdiction and overlapping powers between SFIO and other agencies.
Held:
The Court held that SFIO has primary jurisdiction in cases involving company-related fraud.
Other agencies like CBI can investigate only when offences under other laws (e.g., IPC, PMLA) are also involved.
Significance:
Clarified coordination and jurisdiction between SFIO and other agencies.
SFIO has exclusive jurisdiction under Companies Act for corporate fraud.
VII. Summary of Legal Position
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Statutory Basis | Section 211–212 of Companies Act, 2013 |
| Power to Investigate | Granted by Central Government |
| Arrest Power | Yes, under Section 212(8) |
| Summoning Power | Can summon individuals, professionals, officers |
| Overlap with Other Agencies | SFIO has exclusive jurisdiction in company fraud matters |
VIII. Conclusion
The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is a crucial body in India’s legal and regulatory framework to tackle corporate fraud, especially where large-scale public interest is involved. With strong investigative and prosecutorial powers, SFIO plays a pivotal role in enhancing corporate governance, accountability, and investor protection.
However, courts have balanced SFIO's powers by ensuring that constitutional safeguards, fair procedures, and natural justice are upheld.
RELATED Blog
0 comments