Latest News

Trafigura and Gupta attorneys trade blame as the trial ends

Commodity traders Trafigura and Prateek Gupta, both Indian businessmen, told London's High Court that they had failed to prove their employees knew about or participated in a $600,000,000 metals fraud. This was as lawyers made final arguments in the long-running case.

Gupta’s lawyers countered that?unusual trade practices indicated Trafigura employees devised the scheme underlying the dispute. This involved substituting low-value metals or nickel for cheap ones.

Trafigura of Geneva, which sued Gupta in court more than two year ago, has insisted that no employees were aware of the fraud before cargo inspections, scheduled for November 2022,

Gupta alleged that Trafigura employees fabricated a series of complex transactions in order to "inflate" the group's position in nickel trading. He?tried remotely from Dubai, where he lives.

In written closing arguments, Gupta’s lawyers stated that Mr Oikonomou & Mr Bhatia continued to trade despite uncommercial practices & red flags. This led them to conclude that they were participants in the fraudulent arrangement.

Sokratis Bhatia was a trader based in India who worked for Trafigura. Harshdeep Oikonomou, the head nickel trader, also left Trafigura. Both are no longer employed by the company, and they have both submitted affidavits stating that they were not aware of the fraud or participated in it.

Gupta claimed that staff at his company and Trafigura had worked together in order to prolong the credit period offered by Citi, and to reduce the chance of cargo inspections which would reveal the true contents.

Citi declined to comment about the case.

Gupta’s team provided emails and chats with Trafigura employees, which included discussions about "red flags", that they claimed proved he wasn't acting alone.

Trafigura claimed during the trial Gupta was a fraudster with a long history and that he had taken money from the 'alleged scheme' to help his struggling business.

Trafigura's lawyers stated in their written closing arguments that Mr Gupta’s evidence was "implausible", inconsistent, both internally and with previous accounts, incoherent and simply unbelievable.

This approach... doesn't begin to fill in the evidence void that (alleged arrangement was ever agreed upon).

Gupta's assets have been frozen since February 2023. He unsuccessfully tried to lift the order in December of that year. Reporting by Eric Onstad. Mark Potter (Editing)

(source: Reuters)