For nearly thirty years, Rajesh Exports represented Indian entrepreneurial ambition. The success story and humility of Rajesh and Prashanth Mehta inspired countless Gujarati entrepreneurs—proving that a small family jewellery “dhanda” could become a global gold empire. Their 2015 acquisition of Swiss gold giant Valcambi SA made headlines worldwide and put them among India’s top business icons.
Rajesh Exports is the only company in the world with presence across the entire value chain of Gold from refining to retailing. It is also the largest processor of gold in the world, REL, as Rajesh Exports is known, processes 35% of gold produced in the world. As the largest gold exporter of India, sources say their sales so far would have easily surpassed $45 billion so far. The company also owns Valcambi, the world’s largest gold refinery at Balerna in Switzerland. Valcambi is owned by European Gold Refineries, which is owned by Global Gold Refineries AG, which in turn is 95% owned by REL Singapore PTE Ltd. and 5% by Rajesh Exports Limited India. Valcambi is thus 100% controlled by Rajesh Exports, the parent company of REL Singapore.
But today, that glittering success story feels like a fairy tale gone wrong. Allegations of financial misrepresentation have shaken not just the company, but the faith of those who saw Rajesh Exports as an example of hard work and Indian success story. SEBI’s numbers boggle the mind: ₹15.15 lakh crore allegedly misrepresented over five years—a sum bigger than many national economies. Rajesh Mehta, at the centre of it all, insists the charges are baseless. He has been quoted as saying that a response will soon be issued by his company. He has said the SEBI charges are not accurate. “We are going through the findings and will share a detailed statement,” he has said. As legal teams scramble for answers, investors and admirers are left stunned, wondering what’s real and what isn’t.
SEBI’s allegations strike at the heart of trust—the faith investors, employees, and ordinary Indians place in what’s reported. Within hours, panic swept the markets. Shareholders watched their money disappear as Rajesh Exports shares hit the lower circuit, tumbling 5% in a morning—turning hope into disbelief and anxiety.
But tumbling share prices are just the tip of the iceberg. For the Mehta family and all those tied to Rajesh Exports, the real storm is only just beginning. At the heart of SEBI’s case is a question that haunts every honest businessperson: How could a company report such astronomical revenues, year after year, with so little independently verified?
The investigation began with what appeared to be a routine shareholder complaint. In March 2024, SEBI received representations questioning unusually large trade receivables that had remained outstanding for more than two years. Such receivables often attract regulatory attention because they can indicate collection problems, questionable transactions or deeper accounting irregularities. What started as an inquiry into delayed payments gradually evolved into one of the most extensive investigations into a listed Indian company in recent years.
SEBI appointed an investigating authority in October 2024 and subsequently commissioned a forensic audit. As investigators dug deeper into the company’s books, they began examining the complex web of overseas subsidiaries through which Rajesh Exports claimed most of its business was conducted.
According to the regulator, between 97 and 99 per cent of Rajesh Exports’ consolidated revenues were attributed to overseas subsidiaries and step-down subsidiaries. Central to this structure was Valcambi SA, the Switzerland-based refinery that Rajesh Exports consistently portrayed as the operational backbone of its global business.
What investigators claim they discovered has become the centrepiece of the case.
SEBI noted that while Valcambi was presented as the principal revenue-generating engine of the group, its standalone audited financial statements painted an entirely different picture. According to the regulator, Valcambi’s independently reported revenues accounted for less than 0.5 per cent of the consolidated revenues of Rajesh Exports and its Swiss holding entity, Global Gold Refineries AG.
That gap between what was claimed and what was real is the stuff of boardroom nightmares. If SEBI’s preliminary findings are ultimately upheld, it would mean that revenues reported at the group level were vastly larger than revenues that could be independently verified through the records of the very subsidiary said to be generating the business.
The regulator’s order describes the discrepancies as “egregious and unheard of”, unusually blunt language for a securities regulator. SEBI alleged that the reporting practices enabled Rajesh Exports to project an inflated picture of its operational scale, financial health and overall business performance to investors and the securities market.
The regulator’s concerns did not stop at the numbers.
One of the recurring themes throughout the order is the alleged lack of cooperation extended to investigators and forensic auditors. SEBI said Rajesh Exports repeatedly failed to provide critical information relating to customers, suppliers, debtors, creditors and inventory records. Investigators also complained of being denied meaningful access to enterprise resource planning systems and primary accounting records necessary to independently verify transactions.
The company, according to the order, cited Swiss data protection laws and confidentiality obligations as reasons for withholding information relating to foreign subsidiaries. SEBI rejected those arguments, stating that foreign privacy provisions cannot override disclosure obligations imposed under Indian securities laws. In one of the strongest observations in the order, the regulator said that a listed company operating in Indian capital markets cannot rely on private confidentiality arrangements or foreign data protection provisions to dilute or defeat statutory disclosure requirements.
Above: Rajesh Mehta of Rajesh Exports at one of their jewellery showrooms in Karnataka. Picture from company website
their show room iInvestigators say the lack of cooperation significantly hampered efforts to verify the company’s claims. Even where accounting ledgers were eventually provided, the records were allegedly incomplete and insufficient for forensic verification.
The concerns extended beyond revenues.
SEBI also questioned a reported investment of approximately ₹1,035 crore in African gold mining assets. According to the regulator, the company failed to furnish adequate documentation supporting the existence, ownership and valuation of these investments. Investigators said they were not provided entity-wise breakups, valuation reports, reconciliation statements or other records that would normally substantiate such significant investments.
Another red flag reportedly emerged from transactions involving Affluence Shares and Stocks Pvt Ltd. Rajesh Exports reportedly recorded sales and purchases exceeding ₹11,000 crore with the entity. However, according to SEBI, Affluence claimed that Rajesh Export was not their client. This contradiction is starking.
Perhaps the most serious allegations concern the movement of company funds through the personal bank accounts of promoter-chairman Rajesh Mehta. SEBI alleged that corporate funds were routed through Mehta’s accounts for various purposes, including maintaining confidentiality, facilitating onward transfers, and concealing the originating bank account.
The regulator cited correspondence in which the company allegedly admitted that certain funds had been routed through Mehta’s personal account “without revealing the bank account from which the funds had come”. SEBI interpreted this explanation as evidence of intentional obscuring of transaction trails and layering of financial transactions.
The order further alleges that transactions involving approximately ₹7.4 crore moved through Mehta’s personal accounts before portions of the funds were returned to the company. It also raises questions about derivative trading allegedly conducted through the promoter’s personal trading account, even though related entries appeared in the company’s records.
The fallout has already reached beyond the company itself. SEBI has barred Rajesh Mehta from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in Rajesh Exports securities until further orders. The regulator has also directed the company to make true and fair disclosures regarding its financial statements and related-party transactions and has ordered full cooperation with a fresh forensic audit.
The matter may also have consequences for the company’s auditors. SEBI has indicated that the case will be referred to the National Financial Reporting Authority, citing prima facie concerns regarding potential failures in statutory audit oversight.
For investors, the implications are enormous. Among the largest shareholders in Rajesh Exports is Life Insurance Corporation of India, which holds approximately 10.8 per cent of the company. Because LIC’s investments are ultimately backed by millions of average Indians who are policyholders, the controversy extends far beyond the company’s promoter group and institutional investors.
SEBI claims that shareholder wealth erosion linked to the alleged misconduct could amount to ₹12,726 crore. Adding to the pressure, Rajesh Exports is simultaneously battling lender concerns. Canara Bank has reportedly classified its exposure to the company as a stressed asset following repayment defaults and has initiated steps to auction outstanding dues estimated at around ₹509 crore.
For a company that once embodied the Indian entrepreneurial dream, this crisis cuts deep. Some still stand by the Mehta brothers, insisting the charges are overblown or the result of some not publicly known reason masqueraded as regulatory harassment. Others whisper about unseen hands and vendettas. For now, the glow of Rajesh Exports has faded into a fog of doubt—even among former supporters.
It is important to note that SEBI’s findings remain preliminary and that Rajesh Exports and Rajesh Mehta will have the opportunity to present their defence. The investigation is ongoing, and no final determination has yet been made. What we know till now is only the SEBI side of the story.
The central question now confronting regulators, investors and the broader market is not merely whether revenues were misrepresented, but how alleged discrepancies of such extraordinary magnitude could have remained hidden for years within one of India’s most prominent listed companies. What did the regulators do all this while?
The answers may ultimately determine not only the future of Rajesh Exports, but also the confidence investors place in the integrity of corporate disclosures across India Inc. and the professionalism of Indian regulators.
Above: Rajesh Export promoters at a MOU. Picture from Company website.
A disturbing aspect of the Rajesh Exports case is not the size of the alleged revenue discrepancy but the length of time for which it allegedly remained hidden in plain sight.For nearly five years, Rajesh Exports reported consolidated revenues in the several-lakh-crore-rupees range, making it one of India’s largest listed companies by turnover. Those figures were audited, disclosed to stock exchanges, scrutinised by analysts, and relied upon by institutional investors, including the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).
SEBI’s interim findings suggest that the alleged misrepresentation may have been aided by an extraordinarily complex international corporate structure spanning Switzerland, Singapore and other overseas jurisdictions. According to the regulator, between 97 and 99 per cent of the company’s reported revenues originated from foreign subsidiaries and step-down subsidiaries, placing the bulk of the business beyond the immediate visibility of Indian investors.
At the centre of that structure was Swiss gold refinery Valcambi SA, which Rajesh Exports consistently described as the group’s principal operating entity. However, investigators found that Valcambi’s standalone audited financial statements reflected revenues amounting to less than 0.5 per cent of the revenues reported at the consolidated level.
The alleged discrepancy has been further compounded by what SEBI described as repeated non-disclosure of underlying transaction data. Investigators claim they were denied party-wise details of customers, suppliers, inventory holdings, debtors and creditors. Requests for records were reportedly met with claims that Swiss data-protection laws prevented disclosure.
SEBI rejected that defence, arguing that foreign confidentiality provisions cannot override disclosure obligations under Indian securities laws.
The regulator also noted that forensic auditors were allegedly denied meaningful access to primary accounting records, enterprise resource planning systems and supporting documentation necessary to independently verify transactions. Even where records were provided, investigators found them incomplete or deficient.
Taken together, these factors may have created what experts describe as an “information black box” — a structure in which large, consolidated revenues were reported to investors while the underlying transactions remained difficult to verify independently.
The episode raises uncomfortable questions not only for Rajesh Exports but also for India’s broader financial ecosystem. How did auditors sign off on accounts that are now under scrutiny? Why did the discrepancies not trigger earlier regulatory intervention? Did analysts and investors place excessive reliance on reported revenues without sufficiently examining cash flows, receivables and subsidiary-level disclosures? These questions are likely to remain at the centre of the investigation.
Because if SEBI’s allegations are ultimately proven, the scandal may not be merely about inflated revenues. It may also expose how opacity, complex cross-border structures, weak disclosures and insufficient scrutiny allegedly enabled one of the largest financial misrepresentation cases in recent corporate history to go undetected for years.
The alleged fraud, if proven, was not hidden in the shadows. It sat in annual reports, audited accounts and stock exchange filings—raising the uncomfortable question of whether the system was looking, but not seeing.” Or is that Rajesh Exports has been “fixed” into this controversy by some vested interests? Only time will tell, or may.
Also Read: The Pipavav Port Issue And Environmental Democracy In India. https://www.vibesofindia.com/the-pipavav-port-issue-and-environmental-democracy-in-india/
