HomeCirculars › RBI/2010-11/589

RBI Tightens Concurrent Audit Rules to Curb Loan Frauds

No longer current — withdrawn, no replacement on file yet
Source: Reserve Bank of India · RBI/2010-11/589 · issued 30 Jun 2011 · ~2 min read
Quick answerRBI mandates banks to independently verify third-party certifications (CA, lawyer, valuer) and title deed genuineness for large loans. Concurrent auditors must report on these checks. IBA to issue caution lists for errant certifiers.
The rule, in the simplest words
How it plays out — a real example

A credit & lending officer in Indore is processing a large housing loan. She calls the lawyer who certified the land title deed to confirm it's real. She also sends a letter to the local revenue office asking for a title verification report. Before approving the loan, she makes sure both checks are done, just like the RBI rule says.

What changed

RBI observed that many large-value frauds, especially in housing loans, occurred despite concurrent audit coverage, often due to forged documents certified by professionals. The circular now explicitly requires concurrent auditors to verify the authenticity of all third-party certifications and title documents, and to report on internal discipline and staff rotation.

What it means for you

Banks must strengthen their concurrent audit framework to independently confirm the genuineness of borrower-submitted certificates and title deeds, especially for high-value loans. This increases operational costs and audit intensity but reduces fraud risk. Non-compliance with the 2009 circular on this matter is also flagged.

Historical instruction — do not use for current compliance. This is what was required at the time; it no longer reflects current RBI requirements. If no replacement rule is linked above, that only means none is recorded on our register yet — it does not prove no later applicable rule exists. Confirm on the official RBI source below.

What banks were required to do at the time

Who it affects

All Scheduled Commercial Banks (excluding RRBs), All India Select Financial Institutions, Concurrent audit teams and internal audit departments, Loan sanctioning and credit risk teams, Borrowers submitting third-party certifications

❓ Common questions

Regulatory timeline

Built from our lineage records — each fact carries its provenance; missing history simply is not shown (never guessed).

What triggered this RBI circular on concurrent audit?

A study of large-value frauds, including housing loan frauds, revealed that many were perpetrated using forged documents certified by professionals like valuers, lawyers, and CAs, even when branches were under concurrent audit.

How should banks verify third-party certifications under the new rules?

Banks must independently verify authenticity by directly communicating with the issuing authority. They can also use indirect confirmation, e.g., informing the issuer that non-response by a deadline will be taken as the certificate being genuine.

What happens if a certifier is found to have issued a wrong certificate?

The Indian Banks' Association (IBA) will put in place a process to issue a 'Caution List' regarding that certifier to all banks, helping prevent future frauds.

📜 This document’s life story (1 recorded event, each backed by RBI’s own words)
Repealed by RBI/2025-26/100 — Consolidation of Regulations — Withdrawal of circulars (28 Nov 2025)
RBI’s words: “Official withdrawal register entry #120: DBS.CO.FrMC.BC.No.11/23.04.001/2010-11 — "Efficacy of Concurrent Audit" dated June 30, 2011”
📜 Read the original circular — full text as issued by RBI
RBI/2010-11/589 DBS. CO.FrMC.BC.No. 11/23.04.001/2010-11 June 30, 2011 The Chairmen & Chief Executive Officers of All Scheduled Commercial Banks (excluding RRBs) and All India Select Financial Institutions Dear Sir, Efficacy of Concurrent Audit 1. A study of large value frauds, including frauds under housing loan segment, reported by banks to Reserve Bank of India was undertaken to understand the gaps in the control mechanism which contributed to perpetration of those frauds particularly when the branches were also under concurrent audit. It was observed that large number of frauds were perpetrated on account of submission of forged documents by the borrowers which had been certified by professionals’ ie valuers/advocates/chartered accountants. 2. The reason for failure on the part of concurrent auditors may be attributed to the new/innovative/complex nature of financial products or transactions. Further, banks have assigned audit responsibility to their own staff without ensuring that they are suitably trained to undertake the audit responsibility. 3. In order to contain the frauds, the banks may put in place a system wherein the concurrent audit would look into the following and report on the following aspects: Wherever documents of title are submitted as security for loans, there should be a system where documents of title are subject to verification regarding their genuineness, especially for large value loans. In case of loan against the security of land, the banks may also seek reports from the local revenue authorities regarding the title deeds before sanction of loan. Wherever a Chartered Accountant certificate, property valuation certificate, legal certificate, guarantee/line of credit or any other third party certification is submitted by the borrower, the bank should independently verify the authenticity of such certification by directly communicating with the concerned authority issuing the certificate; indirect confirmation may also be resorted to, ie. indicating to the issuer that in case there is no response by a certain deadline, it would be assumed that the certificate is genuine. Aspects such as internal discipline, staff rotation, checks and balances, etc. should be ensured by the bank. In cases where it is established that the certification given by a chartered accountant, lawyer, registered property valuer or such third party is wrong, IBA should put in place a process to issue a ‘Caution List’ regarding  the certifier to all banks. In this connection, banks may ensure compliance to our circular DBS.CO.FrMC.BC.3 /23.04.001/2008-09 dated March 16, 2009 in the matter. 4. Please acknowledge receipt . Yours faithfully, (A.Madasamy) Chief General Manager
Reproduced for reference with acknowledgment — Source: Reserve Bank of India · RBI/2010-11/589 · issued 30 Jun 2011. The plain-English explanation above is BankPulse’s own independent summary.
🧰 Tools — save, print, templates & related

💬 Banker Discussion

Discuss this circular with fellow bankers — reply, upvote what helps, report what doesn’t belong. Be professional; no client data. Views are the commenter’s own, not BankPulse’s.

Loading comments…
BankPulse Compliance Evidence Pack — generated 03 Aug 2026 · status cross-checked against RBI’s official withdrawal register (refreshed weekly).
Official RBI source: https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=6492&Mode=0 — Plain-English summary by BankPulse (bankpulse.ai), reviewed by our expert reviewer, CA Amit Jain. Independent platform, not affiliated with the Reserve Bank of India; is our own plain-English paraphrase, not RBI’s original wording.
Public beta — plain-English informational summaries. Always verify against the official RBI source (circular number cited on every page) before making compliance, credit, treasury, audit, or operational decisions. · Join our WhatsApp channel ↗