/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2019/09/6765fe99c97a8096e4bba2acd1883854.jpg)
Witness: Investors sued Vinod for RM30m in 2023 after patience wore out
A group of investors decided to file a suit and demand RM30 million in damages from businessperson Vinod Sekhar in 2023 after their patience wore out, the Kuala Lumpur High Court heard today.
Graham David Bell, 66, during re-examination today, revealed this in explaining some of his disagreements during cross-examination.
Summary
A witness in the RM30 million suit against businessperson Vinod Sekhar says he and other plaintiffs sued the latter after realising their money was lost.
Graham David Bell also claims Vinod had made representations of his connections to influential people, including PM Anwar Ibrahim.
A group of investors decided to file a suit and demand RM30 million in damages from businessperson Vinod Sekhar in 2023 after their patience wore out, the Kuala Lumpur High Court heard today.
Graham David Bell, 66, during re-examination today, revealed this in explaining some of his disagreements during cross-examination.
Bell's disagreement with defendant’s counsel Rajan Navaratnam in previous proceedings included that the suit could have been filed earlier, especially in 2006, for the former’s claims against Vinod.
“We did not have any reason to suspect there was a case (at that time). We were told everything was fine, there was no reason to be worried, and we’ve been getting nice emails (on their queries).
“I’m saying for all the plaintiffs (that) we kept on asking (until) eventually our patience wore out. It’s very simple.
“(And then) we started finding out about these cases (allegedly against Vinod) and everything else, and that is when we initiated (this suit)… We realised that our money was lost,” he said.
Connections to influential people
Bell, who is the fourth out of 12 plaintiffs in the suit, had said in the suit’s statement of claim as well as his witness statement, that he had transferred some US$250,000 (RM950,000) to Vinod or companies related to him in 2006, where the funds were for investment in Delink and Deprotin technologies.
The investment was intended to be placed into a Guernsey CI company called Petra Technologies Limited.
He also revealed to his counsel, Colin Andrew Pereira, that Vinod had made representations to him, in private meetings and conversations, despite agreeing with Rajan’s contention previously that there was no evidence in court to back his claims.
Among the representations, he added, was being connected with influential individuals, including Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
“The evidence (of the said representation) was in private meetings with him (Vinod) and conversations, as well as through research, newspapers and magazines where we saw lots of claims (of Vinod being connected) to various important people.”
Today’s proceedings ended with Colin wrapping up his re-examination of Bell’s evidence, with the judge fixing January 16, 22, and 23 of next year to continue hearing the case.
Case background
The suit, which was filed on May 31, 2023, saw a group of 12 individuals seeking millions in damages from Vinod and his wife Winny Yeap Liew Heoh, who was named as the second defendant, alleging the duo had committed misrepresentation, fraud and breach of contract.
Apart from Bell, nine of the plaintiffs were investors with Vinod, namely Arthur J Mirante II, Ronald Barrie Clapham, Charles Robert Henry Stone, Paul Sallis Benney, Paul Nicholas Smith, Octavio Augusto Vallarino Arias, Simon Hafeitz Homsany, Talbortt Gerard Young and Uri Fruchtmann.
The remaining two plaintiffs, Andrew Murray-Watson and April Srivikorn, are Vinod’s former employees.
The group of plaintiffs claimed that Vinod had persuaded them to invest their money with him or with his various companies, without disclosing his purported bankruptcy at the material time.
In their statements of claim, the plaintiffs said that they queried Vinod on the bankruptcy matters via email on Sept 30, 2020. The latter “brushed it off” and appeared to suggest that one “Anwar” would attend to the matter and that he is aligned with Anwar.
The plaintiffs believe that “Anwar” refers to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. They named Yeap as the second defendant in the case, alleging she had conspired with Vinod to perpetrate fraud, breach of contract and misrepresentation against them.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2019/09/6765fe99c97a8096e4bba2acd1883854.jpg)
Report this comment
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.