On the evening of June 3, 2026, India's market regulator released a 109-page interim order that read less like routine enforcement and more like an indictment. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) barred Rajesh Exports Limited (REL) — one of the country's largest gold companies — and its promoter-chairman Rajesh Mehta from the securities market, alleging that the company may have misrepresented roughly ₹15.15 lakh crore of revenue over five years, much of it routed through a Swiss subsidiary at the heart of the global gold trade.
The regulator's own description of what it found was blunt: "egregious."
It started with a shareholder, not a whistleblower
What makes the case unusual is its origin. There was no insider tip-off, no activist investor campaign, no disgruntled former employee. On March 11, 2024, a single shareholder emailed SEBI flagging a seemingly technical concern: a large sum of trade receivables that had been sitting outstanding for more than two years on the company's books — an anomaly that suggested money supposedly owed to the company might never have existed.
That one email set off an investigation covering the period from April 2020 to March 2024. More than two years later, it culminated in the interim order signed by SEBI Whole-Time Member Kamlesh Chandra Varshney.
The Swiss connection
To understand SEBI's concerns, you have to understand how REL is built. At the top sits Rajesh Exports Ltd in India. Below it is REL Singapore, a wholly owned holding company with little day-to-day operation. REL Singapore in turn owns Global Gold Refineries AG, and the structure ultimately reaches Valcambi SA — a Switzerland-based precious-metals refiner and one of the largest gold refineries in the world. REL acquired Valcambi in 2015 for about $400 million.
That prestigious name is central to the story. REL reported consolidated revenue of roughly ₹15.45 lakh crore between FY21 and FY25, with SEBI noting that more than 97% of it was attributed to overseas subsidiaries — overwhelmingly Valcambi. Yet REL's standalone Indian business generated only around ₹26,500 crore over the same stretch. And when SEBI looked at Valcambi's own audited standalone numbers, the gap was stark: in calendar 2023, Valcambi's audited revenue was about ₹543 crore — a tiny fraction of the figures appearing in REL's consolidated accounts.
In other words, the prestigious Swiss subsidiary that lent credibility to the headline revenue did not, on its own books, come close to producing it.
The audit that hit a wall
SEBI appointed BDO India Services as forensic auditor to examine REL's accounts. According to the order, the audit ran into severe obstruction. The company allegedly declined to provide access to its ERP systems — the integrated software that links a company's finance, procurement, manufacturing, supply-chain, and HR functions and would have laid bare its full transaction history. It also allegedly withheld books of accounts, journal entries, customer and vendor records, and subsidiary financial statements.
When pressed, REL leaned on a legal argument: the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP), it said, prohibited transferring this information to India. SEBI examined the statute and rejected the claim outright. The FADP protects the personal data of natural persons — individuals — not the financial records of a corporation answering to an Indian regulator. In the order's words, REL's reliance on the law was "misplaced."
When SEBI fell back on a sampling approach — asking for documentation on a defined set of transactions worth over ₹7,000 crore — the company produced complete supporting records for only a small fraction of the value examined. For the regulator, that was the turning point: if a company cannot, or will not, substantiate the overwhelming majority of a tested sample, the question shifts from "is there an error?" to "can any of this be verified at all?"
What SEBI alleges
Stripped to its core, SEBI's interim order rests on a cluster of linked findings:
The bulk of consolidated revenue — on SEBI's reading, around 99.8% of subsidiary revenues across FY21–FY25 — was attributed to overseas entities whose underlying numbers could not be independently verified. Investors were shown impressive consolidated figures with no means of checking what sat beneath them. SEBI called this a "severe information asymmetry" that kept public shareholders in the dark about the company's true financial position.
The order also flags non-disclosure: as a listed company, REL was obliged to publish its subsidiaries' financial statements and furnish key data to shareholders, but SEBI says the company failed to make these disclosures, leaving investors unaware even of parts of the corporate web from which revenue was being reported. The regulator additionally raised concerns about funds being routed through entities connected to the promoter, and referred the matter to the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) to examine REL's statutory auditors.
The LIC angle
The case carries a public dimension that extends well beyond REL's own shareholders. State-owned Life Insurance Corporation of India holds about 10.79% of Rajesh Exports, per its most recent shareholding disclosure. That stake is built, ultimately, from policyholders' premiums.
REL's share price tells its own story. The stock traded around ₹500 in September 2023; it has since collapsed to below ₹100, hitting lower circuits as the news broke and falling about 5% on the NSE the day after the order. The episode quickly turned political, with Congress MP Jairam Ramesh publicly questioning how LIC — a substantial institutional investor — failed to detect problems of this scale, and whether the size of its stake had been influenced from outside.
The company pushes back
Rajesh Exports has rejected the allegations. In a regulatory filing on June 5, 2026, the company said the claims of inflated revenue and irregular share placement rested on "speculative inferences," stressed that the interim order expressed suspicions rather than conclusive findings, and said it is addressing the regulator's concerns with evidence. It maintained that the large consolidated revenues flow primarily and legitimately from Valcambi, and called SEBI's interpretation of its revenue "totally misplaced."
That distinction matters. This is an interim, ex parte order — a preliminary action taken to ring-fence risk while the investigation continues, not a final verdict. The road from here runs through hearings, the company's right to respond, possible appeals to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, and the NFRA's separate review of the auditors. Closure, as some analysts have noted, is likely a long way off.
Why it matters
Beyond the eye-watering numbers, the case is a study in how a company's true picture can hide in plain sight. A respected foreign subsidiary with a globally recognised name can blunt the scepticism investors would otherwise apply. Overseas subsidiaries of Indian-listed firms face lighter mandatory disclosure than domestic ones, creating structural blind spots. And even a regulator-appointed forensic auditor with investigative authority can be stonewalled long enough to make verification genuinely hard.
For ordinary investors, the lesson the episode keeps offering is an old one made vivid: headline revenue means little if you cannot trace where it comes from — and the more of a company's numbers that resist independent verification, the more weight that silence deserves.
This article is based on SEBI's June 3, 2026 interim order and contemporaneous reporting. The allegations described are SEBI's preliminary findings; Rajesh Exports has denied them, and no final adjudication had been reached as of this writing. Nothing here is investment advice.
0 Comments