Follow us on Google News
The Gujarat High Court has ordered the freezing of assets belonging to former telecom executive Bankim Brahmbhatt and his associate Mohit Rao in connection with an alleged international financial fraud involving nearly $500 million. The interim order, passed on November 2, 2026, came during proceedings initiated by seven companies seeking recovery of approximately $243 million (₹2,337 crore).
Justice D.N. Ray held that the companies had established a prima facie case for protecting the assets, observing that their disposal could jeopardise recovery proceedings. The Court restrained dealings in 36 identified assets linked to Brahmbhatt and 13 linked to Rao, along with other assets under their control.
The dispute centres on allegations that financing was obtained from international lenders through fictitious telecommunications transactions, forged contracts and fabricated customer receivables.
FCRF’s Chief AI Officer Certification Returns on November 14 to Prepare Future AI Leaders
Alleged Fraud Involved Fake Telecom Contracts and Receivables
According to the companies seeking recovery, Brahmbhatt and Rao allegedly secured nearly $500 million in financing using fabricated telecommunications transactions and false financial documentation.
The suspected irregularities came to light in July 2025 when lenders discovered that email confirmations purportedly sent by telecommunications companies originated from fraudulent domains.
In one instance, emails allegedly representing Belgian telecom company BICS were sent from belgacomics.com instead of its legitimate domain, bics.com.
Investigators subsequently identified 26 allegedly fabricated email confirmations involving 18 telecommunications companies and receivables worth approximately $158 million.
The companies also alleged that agreements involving Telstra, Italia Sparkle, BICS and Taiwan Mobile had been forged to support the financing arrangements.
Following the discovery, the affected companies entered bankruptcy proceedings in the United States. A court-appointed officer subsequently traced approximately $190 million to Bankai International in Mauritius.
The plaintiffs further alleged that approximately $719,737 was transferred to three Ahmedabad-based companies, Broadband Telecom Private Limited, Teles Call Centre Private Limited and Innova Call Centre Private Limited.
They also claimed that Brahmbhatt transferred his 41.53% shareholding in Bankai Infotech to his son Raj, who later transferred the shares to his grandfather through gift deeds without monetary consideration.
High Court Expands Asset Freeze Beyond Earlier Civil Court Order
The companies approached courts in multiple jurisdictions to secure assets allegedly linked to the disputed transactions.
The US bankruptcy court permitted proceedings in India on October 15, 2026, while the Singapore High Court granted asset-freezing relief on October 23.
An Ahmedabad civil court initially restrained the transfer of 49,032 shares of Bankai Infotech but declined to grant wider protection at that stage.
The companies challenged the limited relief before the Gujarat High Court, arguing that assets could be transferred or dissipated before recovery proceedings concluded.
Justice Ray held that the civil court had erred by restricting the injunction despite accepting the grounds supporting interim protection.
The High Court observed that the bankruptcy proceedings, orders passed by foreign courts and the risk of asset disposal collectively justified broader safeguards.
The Court consequently extended interim protection to 36 identified assets associated with Brahmbhatt and 13 linked to Rao, along with other assets under their control.
Court Orders Asset Disclosures, Schedules January Hearing
Apart from restraining asset transfers, the Gujarat High Court directed disclosures of assets and financial transactions dating back to September 2020.
The directions are intended to preserve the assets while the companies pursue recovery of the funds allegedly diverted through entities connected to Brahmbhatt and his associates.
Justice Ray emphasised that allowing the assets to be dissipated could undermine the effectiveness of any eventual recovery order.
The Court found sufficient grounds for interim protection but did not deliver a final determination on the allegations of fraud.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on January 11, 2027.
The proceedings remain ongoing, with the alleged financial transactions and the liability of the parties yet to be finally adjudicated.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
