The Allahabad High Court has said that white-collar crimes have “grown too pervasive and too costly”, requiring nothing less than a “firm, uncompromising enforcement,” and denied bail to a builder accused in an Enforcement Directorate case of diverting Rs 126.30 crore from home buyers. The court accused his lawyer of “dillydallying” the trial, directing an expeditious disposal.The court opined that such offences merited an “iron hand”, aside from “mandatory custodial sentences; personal liability for executives regardless of corporate shielding, asset forfeiture, and aggressive prosecution” that would do away with the perception that those with “wealth and status buy a softer form of justice”.Justice Krishan Pahal was dealing with the bail plea of Anil Mithas argued in his plea that previous cases stemming from the alleged incident were settled and that no criminal conspiracy was proved against him. The September 16 ruling, however, stated, “A firm stance sends an unambiguous signal that economic crimes, precisely because they are often invisible and diffuse in their harm, deserve no less severity than crimes committed with a weapon.”The order added, “White-collar crime has grown too pervasive and too costly to be met with anything less than firm, uncompromising enforcement. Corporate fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, and large-scale financial deception routinely destroy pensions, savings, and livelihoods on a scale that dwarfs the damage caused by many street crimes, yet offenders have often faced comparatively lenient sentences, fines their companies can absorb as a cost of doing business, or plea deals that avoid real accountability.” Justice Krishan Pahal rejected builder Anil Mithas’ bail application, noting the seriousness of white-collar crimes.Rs 522 crore in, ’35 homes out ‘The case concerns an Enforcement Directorate (ED) money-laundering investigation against builder Mithas under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act(PMLA) in 2022 for allegedly collecting Rs 522.9 crore from homebuyers for 1,468 units in the Aranya project, but possession was initially given to only 35 buyers. An audit report allegedly revealed a divergence of Rs 107 crore.Also Read | Calcutta High Court says interests of thousands defrauded also important, denies bail to duo in Rs 2,862 crore ‘scam’In 2024, an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered based on five scheduled offences, primarily cheating. Subsequently, the ED filed a prosecution complaint ( a formal written allegation filed by an authorised public servant or investigative agency) in June 2025, alleging d Rs 126.30 crore as proceeds of crime(any money gained or derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity) that had been diverted into Mithas’ company, and Rs 88 crore was given as advance and later shown as irrecoverable in the account books.Story continues below this adSenior Advocate Saumitra Dwivedi and advocates Niraj Kumar and Pankaj Sahni, appearing for Anil Mithas, submitted that he was a reputed builder and had vast experience in the construction of flats and commercial properties. The cases mentioned in the ECIR have either been settled between the parties, or a closure report has been filed therein due to lack of evidence. It was contended that the ECIR was instituted after a delay of about five years and eight months from the date of appointment of IRP, which indicates malice and ulterior motive, and no offence of cheating or criminal conspiracy to cheat is made out from the ECIR or the prosecution complaint filed in the instant case. Also Read | Forced out after 7 years in Army, court grants pension relief to soldier’s widow 4 decades onAdvocate Sushant, appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement, submitted that the financial trail established by the independent audit demonstrates a diversion of Rs 126.30 crore by Anil Mithas, and said that the financial offences constituted a class apart and must be viewed seriously while considering his bail.The counsel said that he had a criminal history of nine cases, mostly involving charges relating to fraud, breach of trust and forgery, and also has a history of absconding.Story continues below this adThe court noted that the applicant’s counsel had been “dillydallying with the trial”, and held that Mithas was not entitled to bail. It also took note of the allegation that he had diverted Rs 126.30 crore from various allottees, which the court said stood established by an independent audit report. The bail was accordingly rejected.