Sourabh Chandrakar: Extradited from Oman, says CBI

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) said it has secured the extradition of Mahadev Online Book promoter Sourabh Chandrakar from Oman and brought him back to India. The agency said he is wanted in two CBI cases in which chargesheets have been filed, as well as an Enforcement Directorate (ED) case in which a prosecution complaint has been filed.

A specially deputed CBI team escorted Chandrakar from Muscat, according to the agency’s statement. The CBI said he would undergo a medical examination and be taken to Raipur after it obtained transit remand, the court authorisation for moving an accused person between jurisdictions. He would then be produced before the CBI Special Judge in Raipur.

The extradition brings Chandrakar back to face proceedings arising from an alleged cross-border betting operation. The CBI’s statement describes accusations and prosecution filings, not a conviction.

Detention in Oman and the extradition requests

The CBI said the Royal Oman Police located and detained Chandrakar on the basis of a Red Corner Notice issued against him. The CBI and ED then sent formal extradition proposals to Oman with evidence gathered against the accused, according to the agency.

The request was pursued with Indian government agencies, the Interpol National Central Bureau and the competent Omani authorities, the CBI said. After extradition was granted, its team travelled to Muscat to escort him to India. The agency thanked the Omani government and the Royal Oman Police for their cooperation.

Gulf News separately reported that the Royal Oman Police had announced the arrest of a suspect wanted by India in fraud and money-laundering cases. According to the publication, the Omani statement said the suspect had been handed over to Indian authorities after the required legal procedures were completed.

That statement did not identify the suspect by name, Gulf News reported. The identification of Chandrakar in the extradition account comes from the CBI.

What the CBI cases concern

The CBI said it took over the Mahadev Online Book investigations at the request of the Chhattisgarh government. It described an operation run from outside India through franchised “panels” and “branches” across the country.

According to the agency, these local units enrolled users and collected stakes for alleged illegal betting on cricket, football, card games and other events. The arrangement connected an overseas-controlled platform with operators handling customers and money in India.

The CBI alleged that betting proceeds passed through numerous mule bank accounts, meaning accounts used to receive and move money for others. It said the funds were layered through multiple transactions and transferred abroad through hawala channels, an informal system for transferring value. Part of the proceeds allegedly paid for protection from public servants, allowing the operation to continue without interference.

The agency said its chargesheets invoke the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code provisions concerning criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery, and the Chhattisgarh Gambling (Prohibition) Act. Chandrakar is among the accused named in those filings, it said.

The cases therefore concern not only the alleged betting business but also accusations about how money was collected, concealed and used to obtain protection. These remain the CBI’s allegations; filing a chargesheet places the prosecution’s case before a court rather than establishing guilt.

ED’s account of the money trail

The ED’s press release of 25 March 2026 provides a dated account of its separate money-laundering investigation. It said Chandrakar and fellow promoter Ravi Uppal controlled the betting operation from Dubai, while associates operated its franchise network in India.

The ED alleged that the promoters retained approximately 70-75 per cent of the profits generated by betting panels, with the rest distributed among panel operators. It identified Tiger Exchange, Gold365 and Laser247 among the platforms and domain names used by the operation.

According to the ED, thousands of mule or dummy accounts were opened using know-your-customer documents belonging to unsuspecting individuals. The agency alleged that funds moved abroad through hawala channels, cryptocurrency transactions and layers of financial transfers before being invested in assets in India and the United Arab Emirates.

In that release, the ED said a provisional attachment order dated 24 March 2026 covered 18 immovable properties in Dubai and two in New Delhi, with a combined fair market value of nearly Rs 1,700 crore. Attachment restricts dealings in assets; a provisional attachment is not a criminal conviction.

The ED linked the properties to Chandrakar, entities under his control and associates. It alleged that they had been acquired with proceeds of illegal online betting.

Earlier filings and the scale reported in March

The ED’s investigation predates the extradition announcement. In a press release dated 8 March 2024, it said prosecution complaints had been filed on 20 October 2023 and 1 January 2024. The agency said its investigation began with first information reports registered by Chhattisgarh Police and subsequently incorporated police cases from other states.

By 25 March 2026, the ED reported searches at more than 175 premises, 13 arrests and 74 people named as accused in five prosecution complaints before the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in Raipur. Those figures describe the position reported on that date, rather than a fresh count accompanying the extradition.

The same release put the combined value of attached, seized or frozen movable and immovable properties at approximately Rs 4,336 crore. That figure covers different forms of enforcement action and should not be read as an amount finally confiscated by a court.

The ED also said it had filed applications under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018, seeking declarations against Chandrakar, Uppal and two other accused, along with confiscation of their properties. The release described applications seeking those orders, not court decisions granting them.