In response to the State Bank of India’s recent classification of Reliance Communications’ (RCom) loan account as “fraud,” two other Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (ADAG) companies—Reliance Infrastructure and Reliance Power—have issued formal statements distancing themselves from the development. The companies emphasized that they are independent, publicly listed entities with no financial or operational ties to RCom, nor to its erstwhile director Anil Ambani. They asserted that the SBI action has no bearing on their governance, performance, or stakeholder interests, seeking to reassure shareholders and the broader market of their continued stability and transparency.
SBI Labels RCom Loan Account as Fraud
India’s largest lender, the State Bank of India (SBI), has flagged the loan account of Reliance Communications and its subsidiaries as fraudulent. In a letter dated June 23, 2025, SBI informed RCom that the decision was taken based on the findings of the bank's Fraud Identification Committee, which uncovered significant discrepancies in the way the company utilized loans totaling Rs. 31,580 crore.
The communication further stated that SBI would report the fraud to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in accordance with regulatory protocols. It also intends to include the name of former RCom director Anil Ambani in its submission, as required by existing RBI guidelines.
RInfra and RPower Reiterate Corporate Independence
In light of the SBI's action, Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (RInfra) and Reliance Power Ltd (RPower) moved swiftly to insulate themselves from any perceived contagion. In separate regulatory filings, both companies firmly stated that they are independent, separately listed entities and operate without any financial, operational, or governance linkages to Reliance Communications.
They further emphasized that Anil Ambani holds no board position in either RInfra or RPower. As such, actions involving him in his capacity as former RCom director have no implications for the governance or performance of these companies.
These declarations are seen as an effort to maintain investor confidence and shield the companies’ reputation amid growing scrutiny of the ADAG group.
No Impact on Stakeholders or Financial Health
Both companies asserted that the SBI’s classification of RCom’s account has no impact on their business operations, financial performance, or stakeholder interests. They reiterated their commitment to strong governance and transparency, seeking to draw a clear line between their current activities and the legacy issues facing other group entities.
Market observers view this proactive communication as a necessary step to reassure retail and institutional investors, especially given the volatile history of some ADAG companies in recent years. The statements are intended to restore trust and clarify the separation of legal and operational responsibilities within the broader group.
Broader Implications for Financial Governance
While the direct fallout of SBI’s move may be limited to RCom, it reflects a broader trend in Indian banking toward stricter enforcement of loan accountability. By moving to classify non-performing or misutilized loans as fraud, public sector lenders are aligning with tighter regulatory norms and reducing tolerance for corporate governance lapses.
The inclusion of individual names like Anil Ambani in regulatory reports signals heightened personal accountability in corporate borrowing, potentially setting a precedent for future cases involving high-profile executives.
Conclusion
As India’s financial sector intensifies scrutiny on corporate borrowing practices, Reliance Infrastructure and Reliance Power have taken a decisive stance to preserve their independence and shield themselves from reputational risk. By distancing themselves from RCom and reaffirming sound governance practices, these companies aim to maintain operational continuity and market confidence. With vigilant oversight from regulators and proactive communication from companies, the emphasis is clearly shifting toward accountability and resilience in the corporate finance ecosystem.
Comments