In a regulatory filing, IDFC First Bank said certain employees at its Chandigarh branch were allegedly involved in fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs 590 crore from accounts linked to the Haryana government. The bank has suspended four officials suspected to be involved, pending the outcome of an internal investigation.
“The bank will pursue strict disciplinary, civil and criminal action against the employees and other external individuals responsible, in accordance with applicable law,” the lender said in its exchange filing. It has also lodged a complaint with the police authorities.
As part of its immediate response, the bank has sent recall requests to certain beneficiary banks, seeking to lien-mark balances in accounts identified as suspicious. Additionally, IDFC First Bank is in the process of appointing an independent external agency to conduct a forensic audit to thoroughly examine the matter.
The irregularities came to light after the Haryana government requested closure of its account and transfer of funds to another bank. During this process, discrepancies were observed between the balance reflected in the bank’s records and the amounts reported by the government entities.
Also Read | How to manage one mutual fund portfolio for multiple financial goals
From February 18, 2026, several Haryana government entities approached the bank regarding their respective accounts, during which further mismatches were detected.
The bank clarified that the fraudulent activity was confined to a specific set of government-linked accounts operated through the Chandigarh branch and does not impact other customers of the branch.
On Friday, shares of IDFC First Bank closed 0.64% higher at Rs 83.51 on the NSE.
Technical view: On the technical front, the 14-day Relative Strength Index (RSI) stands at 50.3. An RSI reading below 30 is considered oversold, while a level above 70 indicates overbought conditions.
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of Economic Times)