In its findings, Sebi alleged accounting irregularities, diversion of company funds into personal accounts, and a pattern of conduct aimed at misleading investors. The regulator also flagged lapses by the company’s auditors and said both Rajesh Exports and its auditors failed to fully cooperate with the investigation.
In its 109-page interim order dated June 3, Sebi said its investigation and forensic examination revealed prima facie evidence suggesting that nearly 97-99% of the company’s reported revenue may have been inflated. The regulator described the alleged discrepancies as “egregious and unheard of”.
Pending further directions, Sebi has barred Rajesh Mehta from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities of Rajesh Exports. The regulator has also directed the company to fully cooperate with investigators and ensure true and fair disclosure of its financial statements and related-party transactions.
“The acts of REL constitute a deliberate device, scheme and artifice to mislead and defraud investors dealing in the shares of REL by portraying an inflated and misleading picture of its operational scale, revenue and financial health,” Sebi said in its order.
The case stems from a shareholder complaint received in March 2024 that raised concerns over substantial trade receivables reflected in the company’s accounts. Following a preliminary review, Sebi initiated a detailed investigation covering the period from April 2020 to March 2024 and appointed BDO India Services as the forensic auditor.Besides restricting Rajesh Mehta from dealing in the company’s securities, Sebi has directed Rajesh Exports to furnish all pending information sought by investigators within 30 days. The regulator has also ordered the appointment of a new forensic auditor to conduct a more comprehensive review of the company’s books and transactions.Rajesh Exports has denied the allegations. In a press release issued on Thursday, the company said the revenues reported in its financial statements were accurate and contended that Sebi’s conclusions were based on a misunderstanding between revenue and EBITDA figures at Swiss refiner Valcambi SA, an indirect subsidiary of the company.
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)
