Seven English entities in liquidation and their liquidators are suing Jatin Mehta, his family, and others in the High Court in London. They allege, and the Mehtas deny, a $1.2B fraud in which the proceeds of gold loans to two Indian jewelers were laundered through UAE companies. A trial before Mrs Justice Joanna Smith began on April 27, 2026, and no judgment has been published.
Latest development Jun 18, 2026
On June 18, 2026, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith refused the defendants’ late amendments accusing the liquidators of conflicts and a corruptly induced appointment. She found the corrupt inducement plea had no real prospect of success or was weak at best, and that allowing the amendments would prejudice the claimants at trial. The related conspiracy counterclaim fell with them.
Why it matters
The court must decide whether the Mehta family is liable for an alleged $1.2B gold loan fraud routed through UAE companies. It also tests whether liquidators of companies said to have been used in a fraud can recover its proceeds from those accused of running it.
Background
Banks lent gold bullion to two Indian jewelry companies, Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery Limited and Forever Precious Diamonds & Jewellery Limited. A consortium of banks backed the loans with standby letters of credit and paid out when the two companies defaulted in April 2013. At the time, Jatin Mehta and Haytham Obidah said the goods had been sold on credit to UAE distributor companies controlled by Obidah. They said those companies had suffered heavy losses on foreign exchange and commodities trading and could not pay.
The claimants are six English companies and an English LLP, all in liquidation, and their joint liquidators. They issued the claim in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales on May 31, 2022. They allege that Jatin Mehta, his wife Sonia, their sons Vishal and Suraj, and Obidah took part in a $1.2B fraud. On their case, the proceeds were laundered through layers of companies, including the claimants, and most ended up with entities owned or controlled by the Mehtas. The Mehtas and IIA Technologies Pte Limited, a Singapore company, deny any involvement and say they are themselves victims of a scheme to conceal the funds. Obidah, said to be a close associate of Jatin Mehta and believed to be based in the UAE, did not appear at trial.
The claimants infer that the gold was sold to 13 UAE distributor companies and passed to Emirates Gold DMCC, a UAE-based refinery. Banking records show that Emirates Gold paid about $1.229B to one distributor, Al Mufied, between April 2012 and March 2013. The defendants admit those payments but deny that they are traceable to the borrowed gold. Winsome and Forever Precious sued the distributors in the Sharjah Federal Court of First Instance. The parties agree that the court-appointed experts’ reports in those cases are accurate on the facts, save one point.
Mr Justice Edwin Johnson granted worldwide freezing orders against the four Mehtas on May 27, 2022, and in March 2023 continued them until trial. On October 3, 2023, Mr Justice Miles dismissed their applications to strike out the claims or for summary judgment. The trial before Mrs Justice Joanna Smith opened on April 27, 2026, when the claimants dropped their unlawful means conspiracy and contribution claims. On June 18, 2026, she refused the defendants permission to allege that the liquidators were conflicted and that their appointment was corruptly induced. The trial was listed to end on July 8, 2026, but no trial judgment had been published as of November 8, 2026.
Timeline 14 events
-
JudgmentJudge refuses the defendants’ late conflict and corrupt inducement amendments
Mrs Justice Joanna Smith refused permission to allege that the liquidators were conflicted and that their appointment was corruptly induced. The related conspiracy counterclaim fell with them.
-
HearingCourt hears defendants’ application to amend their case
Mrs Justice Joanna Smith heard argument over two days on the defendants’ bid to add late amendments concerning the liquidators’ conduct and appointment.
Harrington & Charles Trading Company Ltd & Ors v Mehta & Ors EWHC 1499 (Ch) (18 June 2026)Harrington & Charles Trading Company Ltd & Ors v Mehta & Ors [2026] EWHC 1499 (Ch)
-
FilingClaimants serve fifth amended particulars of claim
The claimants served a further revised pleading, referred to by the parties as the “CRRRRAPOC,” ahead of trial.
Harrington & Charles Trading Company Ltd & Ors v Mehta & Ors [2026] EWHC 1499 (Ch)
-
HearingTrial opens before Mrs Justice Joanna Smith
On the first day, the claimants dropped their unlawful means conspiracy and contribution claims. The trial was listed to run until July 8, 2026.
-
JudgmentCourt lets the defendants dispute the tracing of Emirates Gold funds
Mrs Justice Joanna Smith and Master Kaye refused to strike out amendments denying that Emirates Gold’s payments to Al Mufied were traceable to the borrowed gold. They held that no admission had been withdrawn.
-
OrderParties agree Sharjah court expert reports are accurate on the facts
The reports were filed in claims by Winsome and Forever Precious against the UAE distributor companies in the Sharjah Federal Court of First Instance. The claimants cite them for sales of about $1.26B between April 2012 and March 2013.
-
OrderCourt orders disclosure on funding routed through a UAE law firm
Master Kaye found a real risk that funding for Jatin Mehta’s Indian cases, routed through the UAE firm Shouq Al Kathiri, might obscure a source of funds. She ordered limited disclosure, and trial was listed for April 2026.
-
JudgmentMr Justice Miles dismisses the Mehtas’ strike-out applications
He held that most of their points repeated arguments already decided on the freezing orders and were an abuse of process. He rejected their argument that the proceedings themselves were abusive.
-
JudgmentHigh Court continues the freezing orders until trial
Mr Justice Edwin Johnson had held in November 2022 that the claimants had a good arguable case on the claims he decided. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal on August 29, 2023.
-
OrderMehta fails to halt the London claim, press reports say
Press reports said Jatin Mehta failed in an attempt to stop the roughly $1B fraud claim from proceeding through the English courts.
Diamond Tycoon Jatin Mehta Fails to Halt Banks' $1 Billion Chase Through UK CourtsMehta Fails to Halt British Court Case
-
JudgmentHigh Court publishes reasons for the freezing order
The court issued its written judgment explaining the basis for the worldwide freezing order granted against members of the Mehta family.
Harrington & Charles Trading Company Ltd & Ors v Mehta & Ors, [2022] EWHC 1810 (Ch)
-
FilingLiquidators and their companies issue the claim against the Mehtas
The claimants allege that the proceeds of the gold loans were laundered through layers of companies, including the claimant companies.
-
OrderHigh Court freezes the assets of four Mehta family members
Mr Justice Edwin Johnson granted worldwide freezing orders without notice, with asset disclosure and passport surrender orders.
-
OtherWinsome and Forever Precious default on their gold loans
The consortium banks paid the bullion banks under the standby letters of credit. Jatin Mehta and Haytham Obidah blamed UAE distributor companies that had not paid for the goods.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeBy September 30, 2027, how will the High Court rule on the liquidators’ $1.2 billion fraud claims against the Mehta family?
- Liquidators win against the Mehtas37%
- Mehtas defeat the claims25%
- Split ruling among the Mehtas17%
- Still pending on September 30, 202715%
- Liquidators settle with the Mehtas6%
- Resolves by
- Sep 30, 2027in 11 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The most likely outcome is a trial judgment by September 30, 2027, holding Jatin Mehta and at least one family member liable, at 37%. The claimants have cleared every interim test so far, including freezing orders, strike-out, and the refusal of the Mehtas’ late amendments. Tracing disputes and the dropped conspiracy claim leave real room for a split or defense result.
How it resolves. Resolved on the first trial judgment handed down in BL-2022-000913 by September 30, 2027, as shown by a published judgment, court order, or reliable press report. “Liquidators win against the Mehtas” means Jatin Mehta and at least one other Mehta family member are held liable on a principal claim. “Split ruling among the Mehtas” means Jatin Mehta alone is held liable, or only a Mehta family member other than Jatin is held liable. “Mehtas defeat the claims” means all claims against all four Mehtas are dismissed, whatever the result against Obidah or other defendants. “Liquidators settle with the Mehtas” means a settlement disposing of the claims against the Mehtas is publicly reported before any trial judgment. “Still pending” means none of these has occurred by September 30, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. Reserved judgments after long civil fraud trials in the English Business and Property Courts, where claimants hold freezing orders and survived strike-out: Most reserved judgments after multi-month Business and Property Courts trials arrive within about 6 to 15 months of closing. Claimants who reach trial in English civil fraud cases succeed at least in part in roughly 55% to 65% of cases.
Trial was listed to close on July 8, 2026, and judgment remains reserved. Long fraud trials in the Business and Property Courts often take 6 to 15 months to produce a judgment, so a September 30, 2027, date leaves about a 15% chance it is still pending. On the merits, the claimants start from a base of roughly 55% to 65% partial or full success for fraud claimants who reach trial. Their posture is strong. Two judges found a good arguable case, the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, the strike-out failed, and the Mehtas’ late corrupt inducement plea was refused as weak. The agreed Sharjah expert reports and admitted Emirates Gold payments of about $1.229 billion support the factual foundation. Against that, the defendants were allowed to dispute tracing from the borrowed gold, and the claimants dropped unlawful means conspiracy at trial. Liability against Sonia, Vishal, and Suraj may be harder to prove than against Jatin, which supports a meaningful split outcome. Settlement is unlikely this late, with closing submissions done and judgment imminent. The leading alternative is a dismissal against the Mehtas on tracing or knowledge grounds, at 25%.
Claimants passed every interim merits threshold since 2022 · Tracing from borrowed gold to Emirates Gold payments remains disputed · Agreed Sharjah expert reports anchor the sales evidence · Case against Jatin may be stronger than against family members · Judgment reserved since about July 2026 in a complex trial
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Nov 8, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made