Companies facing regulatory and enforcement investigations must recognise that the strongest defence is built long before an agency notice, search or summons arrives, Senior Advocate Amit Desai said at ETLegalWorld’s India White Collar Crime Forum 2026.
Speaking on regulatory investigations, he said corporates must invest in preparedness, internal training, legal risk assessment and balanced communication strategies as enforcement agencies become more sophisticated and better coordinated.
The fireside chat moderated by Chitra Rentala, partner, Trilegal, Desai reflected on the evolution of white-collar crime practice in India, the growing sophistication of investigative agencies, the role of general counsels during dawn raids, and the reputational risks companies face when regulatory scrutiny becomes public.
Desai said the term “white-collar crime” itself may no longer fully capture the nature of offences now being investigated. He said the expression originated in a different industrial and social context, but today’s offences are more accurately understood as commercial or economic crimes.
Tracing the evolution of the field, Desai said corporate criminal investigations have grown alongside India’s economic changes. He noted that earlier enforcement actions were often linked to customs, excise, foreign exchange and smuggling-related offences, while later decades saw the emergence of complex financial scandals, securities cases and regulatory prosecutions. The present environment, he said, has brought general counsels and law firms into a space that was once not seen as a mainstream corporate legal practice.
Desai said investigative agencies have significantly improved their capacity in recent years. Agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate, SFIO and other enforcement bodies now have access to better talent, coordination and investigative methods. “Today is a time when I find that the investigating agencies are far ahead of the private sector law firms,” he said, adding that companies and lawyers must invest more seriously in understanding how these agencies work.
For general counsels, this means regulatory investigations can no longer be treated as a reactive legal event. Desai said in-house teams must understand the powers of different agencies, search-and-seizure processes, documentation requirements and the risks that arise when company officials are questioned during investigations. “The first port of call for the organisation is not the external lawyer,” he said, noting that in-house counsel are often the first to face the operational consequences of an enforcement action.
On dawn raids and search actions, Desai said such techniques are not new, but the level of surprise and sophistication has increased because of surveillance tools and digital evidence. He said organisations should build internal manuals explaining the powers of agencies, the rights and obligations of company officials, and the steps to be followed when a search begins. These protocols, he said, must be supported by training for general counsels, security personnel and business teams.
Rentala noted that external lawyers may take time to reach the premises, while investigations may already be underway. Desai said this is precisely why preparedness matters. In-house teams must know when to cooperate, when to document events, when to escalate internally and when to seek external legal advice.
Desai also said companies must assess the immediate risks in any criminal or regulatory investigation. If a company calls after a raid has begun, he said the first issue he examines is whether there is any threat to personal liberty. “The first is liberty, and the second is reputation,” he said.
The fireside chat also examined the tension between legal strategy and public communication. Desai said companies often face pressure from investors, lenders or stakeholders to issue public statements after a search or allegation.
He said mandatory disclosures under securities regulations may require companies to make certain statements, but organisations must be careful not to go beyond what is legally necessary without assessing litigation and enforcement consequences. In high-stakes matters, public messaging must balance regulatory compliance, institutional confidence, business continuity and trial strategy.
On the role of general counsels, Desai said Indian companies must recognise GCs as an integral part of management. He said business teams may sometimes see legal and compliance functions as conservative or restrictive, but their role is central to protecting the organisation. The challenge, he said, is to balance regulatory caution with business needs while ensuring that legal requirements are properly understood and followed.
Desai said the best protection lies in compliance readiness. “The best defence in a regulatory investigation begins long before the investigation commences,” he said. The discussion also turned to digital crime and AI-enabled evidence risks. Desai said one of the shortcomings of India’s new criminal laws is that they do not separately and comprehensively address digital crimes. He said existing criminal law provisions are being applied to digital offences even though anonymity, fabricated evidence, deepfakes and digital manipulation create new evidentiary challenges.
He said organisations may need to build additional checks and balances for high-value financial decisions, including stronger verification trails. In some situations, he noted, the risks of digital fraud may even push companies back towards physical or paper-based confirmation for critical transactions. Technology, he said, is moving companies forward but also forcing them to revisit older safeguards where authenticity and accountability are essential.
India Inc’s top legal, compliance, and risk leaders gathered together last week, for the 2nd Edition of India White-Collar Crime Forum in Mumbai, a full-day conference examining how companies can navigate rising enforcement scrutiny, technology-led fraud, and cross-border regulatory risks.
