A Jefferies-linked fund has alleged an ₹8,100 crore fraud involving iron ore financing deals with Radiant World and Sapphire Minmetals.
The fund, LAM Trade Finance Group II LLC, claims the companies falsified documents linked to more than 50 receivables used to secure financing. A London court has frozen global assets worth approximately ₹4,491 crore belonging to the companies and their principal owners, Pinkesh Nahar and Rakesh Sethi, while legal proceedings continue. The allegations remain unproven, and the companies have repeatedly denied wrongdoing.
What prompted the London court to freeze assets?
The freezing order is intended to preserve assets during the proceedings and does not amount to a final judgment on the alleged fraud. The dispute centres on financing arrangements under which the fund says it is owed more than ₹5,490 crore by Radiant World and Sapphire Minmetals.
More than ₹4,950 crore of the claimed amount relates to purported iron ore sales to global commodities traders Glencore and Vitol. According to an affidavit filed by Christopher Bushell, the fund’s lawyer, both companies provided evidence indicating that documents associated with the transactions had been falsified.
Bushell also stated that Glencore and Vitol informed the fund that they had no outstanding obligations to it. The claims have raised questions about whether the sales underpinning the financing arrangements took place as represented and whether the supporting documents were authentic.
Have other creditors reported similar concerns?
The allegations are not confined to the Jefferies-linked fund. In separate legal proceedings, other lenders and creditors have challenged invoices issued by Radiant World with a reported value of approximately ₹4,500 crore.
The creditors include Mizuho Financial Group, Deutsche Bank, Intesa Sanpaolo and Incomlend. Their claims form part of separate disputes and should not be combined with the ₹8,100 crore figure as though both amounts represent a single established fraud.
The overlapping concerns have brought scrutiny to the documentation supporting the companies’ receivables and the verification of transactions with purported buyers. However, the allegations in the different proceedings remain subject to legal examination, and no final determination of liability has been established in the information available.
https://the420.in/fcrf-cp-frm-certified-professional-fraud-risk-management-india/
Why did the fund seek direct contact with buyers?
According to the affidavit, Radiant World and Sapphire Minmetals began missing repayment deadlines in early 2026, prompting the fund to approach counterparties linked to the purported sales. It contacted Glencore’s general counsel in February and also approached Vitol and Gunvor Group, which rebranded as Centalion Group this month.
Sethi allegedly objected to the fund’s contact with Glencore in March, arguing that it should remain on the sidelines while the crisis was being resolved. The affidavit also alleges that the companies showed representatives email exchanges purportedly involving Vitol and Gunvor but declined to provide hard copies.
A law firm representing Radiant World reportedly asked the fund not to contact customers directly about the receivables contracts. In early April, the fund agreed to refrain from contacting the end buyers in exchange for a commitment by Radiant World to repay the outstanding amount by September. The company made two payments but allegedly defaulted again by the end of April.
What is Jefferies’ financial exposure to the dispute?
LAM Trade Finance Group II LLC is described as Point Bonita Capital’s largest single creditor. Jefferies holds a 5.9% stake in Point Bonita, limiting its direct financial exposure to the fund’s position.
Representatives of Radiant World, Sethi and the lawyers involved did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Glencore and Vitol also declined to comment. According to the available information, the defendants, including Radiant World and Nahar, had not yet filed their defence.
The proceedings will focus on the disputed documents, the legitimacy of the purported iron ore sales and the recovery of outstanding debts. The court’s eventual findings will determine the legal responsibilities of the parties. Until then, the allegations remain claims rather than established findings of fraud.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
