Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
No named family has been tied to the claim by the official who made it. In August 2025, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent alleged that Indian businesses had earned an estimated $16 billion in excess profits by buying discounted Russian crude and reselling refined products. In the coverage of his remarks, he did not name any family. The idea that India’s richest families are the beneficiaries comes from later reporting, which placed Reliance Industries and its owner Mukesh Ambani at the centre of the wider controversy. That is a journalistic link, not a statement Bessent made.
What Bessent said, and when
Bessent made the remarks in an interview on August 19, 2025. Scroll reported them the next day, on August 20, 2025. According to that report, he said India’s imports of Russian oil had risen from less than 1% before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine to 42%. He also said Indian businesses had made an estimated $16 billion in excess profits by buying cheap Russian crude and reselling it as refined product. In the words Scroll quoted, he called this “Indian arbitrage, buying cheap Russian oil and reselling it as product, has just sprung up during the war which is unacceptable.”
A Bloomberg Law report from August 19, 2025 attributed a related assertion to Bessent: that Indian families resold Russian crude-derived products, and that the United States planned secondary tariffs tied to purchases of sanctioned Russian oil. Those remarks describe a plan. They do not, in the reporting available, establish that such tariffs were imposed on a particular date or at a particular rate.
The numbers, and what each one measures
Most of the figures in this story come from one of three sources, and they measure different things. Mixing them up is the most common way the story gets distorted.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →#1 Best Overall
| Figure | Who attributes it | What it measures | Status in the reporting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under 1% before the invasion, 42% afterward | Bessent, as reported by Scroll (August 20, 2025) | India’s share of imports of Russian oil | An official claim. The reported passage does not define the exact measurement window or supply a calculation. |
| $16 billion in estimated excess profits | Bessent, as reported by Scroll (August 20, 2025) | Estimated excess profits from buying discounted crude and reselling products | An official estimate. The cited coverage does not give its methodology, underlying data, or beneficiaries. |
| About $33 billion in Russian oil purchases since the invasion began | The Washington Post investigation (September 23, 2025), describing Reliance Industries | Value of crude purchases | A purchase estimate. It is not a profit figure. |
| India’s share of Russian crude imports: 30% (2023) to 34% (2024); China’s: 32% to 26% | Scroll, attributing the figures to the coverage it cited (August 20, 2025) | Each country’s share of Russian crude imports | Reported import-share comparisons. They are not shares of each country’s total oil consumption. |
The import shares are a useful reminder of the denominator. A rise from 30% to 34% of Russian crude imports means India’s slice of that one category grew. It says nothing about how much of India’s total oil supply came from Russia, which is a different measure.
Did Bessent name the families?
He did not, according to both the Scroll account and the Washington Post’s later investigation, which reported that Bessent mentioned no names. The Post said he had discussed Ambani as the likely focus of the controversy, which is the reporter’s characterisation of the debate rather than a quoted naming. Readers who see “India’s richest families” in a headline should read it as the headline writer’s framing of an allegation, not a finding that specific families earned a specified sum.
Rank #2
Reliance Industries and the later reporting
Scroll reported that Indian refiners, including Reliance Industries, processed Russian crude into products such as diesel and jet fuel for export to European markets. It cited The Energy and Resources Institute for that point. This describes the refining activity; it does not establish how much of the $16 billion, if any, accrued to Reliance or to any individual.
The Washington Post’s September 23, 2025 investigation reported that Reliance had bought roughly $33 billion of Russian oil since the invasion began. That is a purchase total. The investigation tied Reliance to the controversy, and it described Ambani as its likely focus, but it did not show a profit calculation for him or his family.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesPurchase value is not profit
Three different numbers are often treated as one. A purchase total tells you how much crude a company bought. An excess-profit estimate tells you how much more it earned than a benchmark would imply. A refiner’s actual gain depends on the discount it received, its processing costs, the prices it got for diesel, jet fuel and other products at the time, and the costs of shipping and insurance. None of these inputs is established for any single company in the reporting cited here. A $33 billion purchase total can be consistent with a large profit, a small one, or a loss, depending on those inputs.
India’s response and Reliance’s argument
India’s Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson, as quoted by Scroll, said: “We reiterate that these actions are unfair, unjustified and unreasonable.” India disputed the US measures and said it would protect its national interests.
Reliance, in a statement to The Washington Post, argued the opposite of the allegation’s framing: “India’s increased purchase of Russian crude after 2022 … helped stabilize global oil markets and prevent supply shocks.” That is the company’s position on the policy effect of its purchases. It is not an independent assessment of the broader market, and the reporting does not test it.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is not established
- The methodology behind the $16 billion estimate, and the dataset it draws on.
- Which companies or families received any excess profit, and in what amounts.
- The exact measurement window for the “less than 1%” and “42%” import figures.
- Whether the secondary tariffs described in August 2025 were ever put into effect, and in what form.
Current conditions and the limits of 2025 reporting
This article is based on coverage from August and September 2025. Oil trade, sanctions and tariff arrangements change, and a claim made then may have been revised, enforced, dropped or superseded since. Before relying on any statement about current US tariffs or sanctions on Russian oil, check the latest announcements from the US Treasury and the US government’s trade agencies, and confirm them with a recent news source.
For personal-finance readers, the practical takeaway is narrow. A headline that names wealthy families and a dollar figure may reflect an official’s allegation rather than an established finding. Separate the claim, its source, its date and what it measures before drawing a conclusion about who benefited.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
