ED files charge sheet against FIITJEE, two directors over fee fraud

The Enforcement Directorate alleges that FIITJEE Limited collected advance fees for multi-year competitive-exam coaching but failed to deliver the promised programmes. It filed a prosecution complaint against the company and directors Dinesh Kumar Goel and Monila Goel under the money-laundering law. The allegations matter because thousands of students paid substantial amounts for education that reportedly stopped before completion.

According to ED, 32 centres in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh closed abruptly between May 2024 and February 2025. Faculty members allegedly left because their salaries were unpaid. Even so, FIITJEE continued enrolling students in programmes running until March 2029. ED says ₹85.79 crore collected from students was laundered, while the directors drew ₹24.92 crore in salaries from 2022-23 onward.

These are allegations, not a final finding of guilt. The special PMLA court in Ghaziabad will consider the complaint and ED’s evidence. The agency is seeking conviction of the company and directors, plus confiscation of assets worth ₹71.88 crore. Further investigation is continuing.

The reported scale is large: ED says FIITJEE abruptly closed 32 centres across Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh between May 2024 and February 2025. Those closures allegedly left 14,411 enrolled students without the coaching programmes they had paid for. The figures show that the dispute affected both many families and a wide network of centres.

Students reportedly paid ₹2.8 lakh to ₹3.5 lakh each in advance. The money covered two-to-four-year programmes for examinations such as the Joint Entrance Examination for the IITs. ED alleges that FIITJEE collected ₹85.79 crore through this arrangement and laundered it, even though the promised services were not delivered.

The agency also says the company kept enrolling students for programmes extending until March 2029, despite centre closures and faculty departures. It claims the collected fees were spent while FIITJEE operated at a continuous deficit. These claims remain for the court to examine, and ED said further investigation is underway.

A charge sheet, or prosecution complaint in this case, is a formal document submitted to a court after an investigating agency alleges that offences occurred. It identifies the accused, describes the alleged conduct, and presents the material the agency says supports prosecution. Its purpose is to bring the case before the court for judicial consideration.

ED filed its complaint against FIITJEE Limited and directors Dinesh Kumar Goel and Monila Goel before a special PMLA court in Ghaziabad. The agency alleges that they laundered advance fees collected from students. It is seeking their conviction and confiscation of assets worth ₹71.88 crore seized or attached during the investigation.

However, filing the complaint does not establish guilt. The court must examine the allegations and evidence, hear the accused, and decide whether the legal requirements for conviction are met. The article describes ED’s claims and says further investigation is continuing. The directors and company therefore remain accused, not convicted, based on the information provided.

ED alleges that FIITJEE continued accepting students for long-term coaching even after its operations were weakening. The centres were supposed to provide programmes lasting two to four years, so new enrolments created obligations that extended far beyond the date of payment. This matters because students and families were allegedly promised future teaching that the company may not have been able to provide.

The agency says FIITJEE closed 32 centres in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh between May 2024 and February 2025. Faculty allegedly left because salaries were unpaid, yet the company continued enrolling students in programmes running until March 2029. ED also claims the company spent collected fees while operating at a continuous deficit.

The article does not explain the company’s internal approval process for these enrolments. It records ED’s allegation that the practice continued despite closures and staff departures. Whether the conduct amounted to money laundering or another offence will depend on the court’s assessment of the evidence. Further investigation is underway.

ED has asked the special PMLA court in Ghaziabad to convict FIITJEE Limited, Dinesh Kumar Goel, and Monila Goel. It has also sought confiscation of assets worth ₹71.88 crore that were seized or attached during the investigation. Confiscation would mean the assets identified in the case could be taken over under the court’s legal process if the allegations are proved.

The agency says it searched seven premises on April 24, 2025, finding ₹10 lakh in cash and jewellery worth ₹4.86 crore. It later provisionally attached properties worth ₹66.92 crore on October 9, 2026, under the PMLA. Together, these actions form the asset trail behind ED’s request, although the article reports the total claim as ₹71.88 crore.

Nothing is final yet. The court must examine the prosecution complaint, evidence, and responses from the accused before deciding whether conviction or confiscation is justified. The article does not specify a sentence or other final penalty. ED said further investigation is continuing, so the case may develop before judgment.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, or PMLA, is an Indian law used to investigate and prosecute the laundering of proceeds linked to criminal activity. It can allow authorities to trace money, search premises, seize or provisionally attach assets, and seek confiscation through a court. The law focuses on what happened to alleged illicit funds, not only on the original offence.

In this case, ED’s money-laundering investigation arose from four police FIRs. The FIRs alleged that FIITJEE collected advance fees for coaching programmes that were not delivered. ED says the company collected ₹85.79 crore and spent the fees while operating at a continuous deficit, treating that alleged conduct as involving laundered money.

The PMLA case does not itself prove the underlying allegations. The special court must assess the police cases, financial records, witness statements, and other evidence. ED has sought conviction and confiscation of assets worth ₹71.88 crore. Further investigation is continuing, so the legal position may change as the case proceeds.

Large advance fees give a company cash before it has delivered the promised service. That can help fund operations, but it also creates a long-term obligation. For a two-to-four-year coaching programme, the company must continue paying teachers, maintaining centres, and providing classes after the student’s payment has been received.

The article illustrates the risk through FIITJEE’s alleged model. Students paid ₹2.8 lakh to ₹3.5 lakh in advance. ED says faculty later left over unpaid salaries, 32 centres closed abruptly, and 14,411 students were left without coaching. The agency also alleges that the collected fees were spent while the company operated at a continuous deficit.

If new fees are used to cover existing costs instead of delivering promised programmes, the company can face a widening cash-flow gap. It may still owe teaching services to earlier students while needing more money to operate. The article alleges FIITJEE continued enrolling students through programmes ending in March 2029, but the court must assess what happened and why.