‘Am I still a chor or cheat’: Vijay Mallya says is it a crime to live life kingsize with one’s own money
Vijay Mallya said there is a God above and one day justice will prevail, after a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court passed an order.
- Oct 15, 2026,
- Updated Oct 15, 2026 9:31 AM IST
Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya asked if it is a crime to live life kingsize with one’s own money. Mallya has time and again voiced that there has been a discrepancy between what he owed and what has been recovered from him.
In a post on X, Mallya put up the order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. “I sincerely request you to read carefully. Am I still a Chor or Cheat? I lived life Kingsize with my own money and that was my biggest crime for which I am being punished. There is a God above for all of us. Someday Justice will prevail (sic),” he said.
The order mentioned Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman who said at the Lok Sabha that assets worth ₹14,131.6 crore, besides the UBL shares, have been restored by Vijay Mallya to the consortium of banks against their own claim of ₹6,203 crore. The order stated that the consortium of banks should have no “no justification for their claim over the UBL shares”.
“More than anything else, we are also of the view that it is Dr. Vijay Mallya's flamboyant lifestyle, excessive personal indulgence and his personal vanity are coming in the way of giving quietus to the claims of the Consortium of Banks against the loan of INR 6,203 crores advanced to the defunct Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. It is for the Consortium of Banks and the Government of India to give quietus to the proceedings when INR 14,131.6 crores worth of assets have been restored to the Consortium of Banks against their loan of INR 6,203 crores,” it said.
WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE CASE
Vijay Mallya has sought the dismissal of criminal proceedings against him. In 2020, he approached the Bombay High Court, stating that his dispute with the consortium of lenders had been settled following asset recoveries.
The consortium opposed Mallya’s plea to quash his money laundering case, arguing that his challenge to an earlier order dated December 31, 2019, was misconceived. The lenders also noted that certain attached shares in the case remain intact and have not been sold.
The legal battle continues on two fronts: civil recovery of bank dues and criminal prosecution by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over alleged bank fraud, criminal conspiracy, and money laundering. The ED said that assets worth about ₹14,132 crore have been restored to the State Bank of India (SBI) but maintained before the high court that civil recoveries do not erase criminal liability under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Mallya, declared a fugitive economic offender in 2019, argues that recoveries exceeding the original decreed debt should lead to the closure of proceedings. However, the ED stated in its reply that the restoration of assets under Section 8(8) of the PMLA is a statutory mechanism for restitution and does not determine the existence of the scheduled offence or money laundering. The ED added that subsequent asset recovery cannot be seen as extinguishing the pending proceedings under the PMLA.
Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya asked if it is a crime to live life kingsize with one’s own money. Mallya has time and again voiced that there has been a discrepancy between what he owed and what has been recovered from him.
In a post on X, Mallya put up the order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. “I sincerely request you to read carefully. Am I still a Chor or Cheat? I lived life Kingsize with my own money and that was my biggest crime for which I am being punished. There is a God above for all of us. Someday Justice will prevail (sic),” he said.
The order mentioned Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman who said at the Lok Sabha that assets worth ₹14,131.6 crore, besides the UBL shares, have been restored by Vijay Mallya to the consortium of banks against their own claim of ₹6,203 crore. The order stated that the consortium of banks should have no “no justification for their claim over the UBL shares”.
“More than anything else, we are also of the view that it is Dr. Vijay Mallya's flamboyant lifestyle, excessive personal indulgence and his personal vanity are coming in the way of giving quietus to the claims of the Consortium of Banks against the loan of INR 6,203 crores advanced to the defunct Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. It is for the Consortium of Banks and the Government of India to give quietus to the proceedings when INR 14,131.6 crores worth of assets have been restored to the Consortium of Banks against their loan of INR 6,203 crores,” it said.
WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE CASE
Vijay Mallya has sought the dismissal of criminal proceedings against him. In 2020, he approached the Bombay High Court, stating that his dispute with the consortium of lenders had been settled following asset recoveries.
The consortium opposed Mallya’s plea to quash his money laundering case, arguing that his challenge to an earlier order dated December 31, 2019, was misconceived. The lenders also noted that certain attached shares in the case remain intact and have not been sold.
The legal battle continues on two fronts: civil recovery of bank dues and criminal prosecution by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) over alleged bank fraud, criminal conspiracy, and money laundering. The ED said that assets worth about ₹14,132 crore have been restored to the State Bank of India (SBI) but maintained before the high court that civil recoveries do not erase criminal liability under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Mallya, declared a fugitive economic offender in 2019, argues that recoveries exceeding the original decreed debt should lead to the closure of proceedings. However, the ED stated in its reply that the restoration of assets under Section 8(8) of the PMLA is a statutory mechanism for restitution and does not determine the existence of the scheduled offence or money laundering. The ED added that subsequent asset recovery cannot be seen as extinguishing the pending proceedings under the PMLA.