SEBI bars Rajesh Exports CMD over ₹15.15 lakh crore revenue fraud claim
Synopsis
SEBI's interim order against Rajesh Exports isn't just another governance lapse — it's an allegation that 99.8% of the company's reported consolidated revenue over five years, roughly ₹15.15 lakh crore, was a paper construct. If proven, this would rank among India's largest listed-company revenue misrepresentation cases.
Key Takeaways
SEBI passed an interim ex-parte order against Rajesh Exports and CMD Rajesh Mehta on 3 June 2025 .
Alleged misrepresentation of consolidated revenues of ₹15.15 lakh crore across FY21-FY25 — nearly 99.8% of reported revenue.
Standalone revenues of ₹12,557 crore over FY21-FY24 also flagged as misrepresented.
Personal derivative trades by Rajesh Mehta worth over ₹11,400 crore each were allegedly booked as company sales and purchases.
SEBI could not corroborate the company's disclosures on African gold mine investments.
Funds routed through personal accounts of Rajesh Mehta and Siddharth Mehta without board or audit committee approvals.
Market regulator SEBI on 3 June 2025 passed an interim ex-parte order against Rajesh Exports Limited (REL) and its Chairman and Managing Director Rajesh Mehta, alleging large-scale financial misrepresentation, fund-routing irregularities and serious corporate governance failures. The 109-page order, issued by SEBI Whole Time Member Kamlesh Chandra Varshney, flags a multi-year pattern of non-genuine transactions and diversion of company funds through promoter-linked entities.
Key allegations in the SEBI order
The regulator alleged that Rajesh Exports misrepresented consolidated revenues aggregating approximately ₹15.15 lakh crore between FY2020-21 and FY2024-25 — nearly 99.8% of the company's total reported consolidated revenue during the period. Standalone revenues worth ₹12,557 crore over FY21-FY24 were also allegedly misrepresented.
According to the order, financial statements and books of accounts from FY21 to FY25 appeared to have been manipulated through non-genuine and unverifiable transactions, incorrect consolidation of accounts, unexplained investments, non-disclosure of related-party transactions and routing of funds through entities linked to promoters.
How revenues were allegedly inflated
SEBI claimed that derivative transactions undertaken by Rajesh Mehta in his personal capacity were recorded as company sales and purchases amounting to more than ₹11,400 crore each. Exchange fluctuation gains and losses running into hundreds of crores were allegedly misclassified as revenue and purchases, while interest income earned from mutual funds and fixed deposits was booked as revenue from operations.
Questions over African gold mine claims
The regulator also questioned the company's disclosures regarding investments in gold mines in Africa. SEBI said it was unable to corroborate the disclosures relating to ‘Other Non-Current Investments' that allegedly represented these African gold mine holdings.
Governance lapses flagged
SEBI raised sharp concerns over the routing of company funds through the personal bank accounts of Rajesh Mehta and Siddharth Mehta. These transactions, the regulator said, were neither disclosed as related-party dealings nor approved by the board or audit committee.
‘I prima facie find that the pattern of routing substantial sums through the personal bank accounts of Mr. Rajesh Mehta and Siddharth Mehta, coupled with absence of approvals, non-disclosure and inconsistent explanations, demonstrates systemic failure of corporate governance, concealment of material information and deliberate circumvention of regulatory requirements,' Varshney said in the order.
What happens next
The interim ex-parte order is part of an ongoing SEBI investigation, and the company and its promoters are expected to be given an opportunity to respond. Market participants will closely watch the regulator's next steps, including potential restrictions on access to the securities market and any forensic audit directives.
Point of View
This is not an accounting slip — it is an allegation that almost the entire reported revenue base of a listed company was engineered. The use of personal derivative trades reclassified as company turnover, and unverifiable African gold mine assets, points to a structural audit failure, not just a promoter one. The bigger question is how multiple auditors, exchanges and analysts signed off on a ₹15.15 lakh crore revenue stack over five years without red flags surfacing earlier. Investor protection in India still leans heavily on post-facto regulatory action rather than pre-emptive surveillance — and this case will test that gap.
NationPress
8 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the SEBI order against Rajesh Exports about?
SEBI passed an interim ex-parte order on 3 June 2025 against Rajesh Exports Limited and its CMD Rajesh Mehta, alleging large-scale financial misrepresentation, fund-routing through promoter-linked entities and governance failures. The 109-page order is part of an ongoing investigation.
How much revenue did SEBI allege was misrepresented?
SEBI alleged that consolidated revenues of approximately ₹15.15 lakh crore between FY2020-21 and FY2024-25 were misrepresented — nearly 99.8% of the company's total reported consolidated revenue. Standalone revenues of ₹12,557 crore over FY21-FY24 were also flagged.
How were the revenues allegedly inflated?
According to SEBI, derivative transactions undertaken by Rajesh Mehta in his personal capacity were recorded as company sales and purchases of over ₹11,400 crore each. Exchange fluctuation gains and losses and interest income from mutual funds and fixed deposits were also allegedly classified as revenue from operations.
What did SEBI say about Rajesh Exports' African gold mine investments?
SEBI said it was unable to corroborate disclosures relating to ‘Other Non-Current Investments' that allegedly represented investments in African gold mines. The regulator has questioned the genuineness of these claims.
Who is Siddharth Mehta and why is he named?
Siddharth Mehta is named in the order as a promoter-linked individual whose personal bank account, along with that of Rajesh Mehta, was allegedly used to route substantial company funds without disclosure as related-party transactions or approvals from the board and audit committee.
