Finance

Dubai Civil Court has declared a Gulf national insolvent after finding that he owed three banks a total of Dh1.029 million but had no assets available to repay the debts.

The court ordered the termination of the insolvency proceedings and barred the man from obtaining new loans or financing for three years, in accordance with the legal provisions governing insolvency.

The decision followed a report by the insolvency trustee, which found that the debtor had no funds or properties that could be liquidated to settle his outstanding liabilities.

The debtor had obtained bank financing worth Dh550,000 in November 2024, with monthly instalments of Dh13,000. After he stopped making payments, the financing bank presented a cheque for Dh550,000 in September 2025, but it was returned because of insufficient funds. The bank’s claim subsequently reached Dh555,000.

In May 2025, the man also secured a personal loan of Dh395,000 from another bank, requiring monthly instalments of Dh9,257. He had additionally accumulated credit card debts with two other banks, with the outstanding balance on one card reaching Dh80,000. The total debt recognised by the court amounted to Dh1,028,980.

Court documents showed that the debtor held a government job and earned a gross monthly salary of Dh20,645. However, the combined monthly installments on his two loans alone totalled Dh22,257, exceeding his salary before accounting for credit card payments and everyday living expenses.

The debtor told the court that he spent approximately Dh21,000 a month supporting his family. The documents also established that he owned no property registered in his name, held no trade licences and had no shares listed on the Dubai Financial Market. He lived with his family in a property owned by another person.

An examination of his bank accounts revealed only limited balances. His sole identified vehicle was a 2011-model car, which the court considered necessary for his personal use and daily living.

The insolvency trustee concluded that there were no assets available for liquidation and that the balances in the debtor’s bank accounts did not exceed what was required to meet his basic needs. The court consequently found that further liquidation proceedings would serve no purpose and declared him insolvent before terminating the case.

The debtor’s legal representative, said insolvency decisions involving financially distressed individuals were based on a comprehensive assessment of their financial circumstances, including their debts, bank balances and available assets.

Such proceedings often establish that a debtor cannot meet financial obligations and has no assets that can be liquidated to repay creditors, he said.

Declaring an individual insolvent is a judicial process intended to regulate the debtor’s legal position under the applicable rules. The resulting statutory restrictions remain in force for three years, while the individual’s basic needs and family responsibilities are taken into consideration, he added.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered several individuals to repay Dh59,153 obtained through a fake trading and investment scheme promoted on Telegram, along with Dh3,500 in compensation for financial and emotional harm.

The victim was persuaded to transfer money to the defendants’ bank accounts in three installments after being offered what was presented as a trading and investment opportunity. The defendants subsequently refused to return the funds.

A criminal court had previously convicted the defendants of fraud and ordered their deportation instead of imprisonment. The judgment also held them responsible for the costs of the criminal proceedings.

In the subsequent civil case, the complainant sought repayment of the misappropriated amount and Dh200,000 in compensation for material and emotional damages. He also claimed Dh2,000 towards criminal proceedings costs, annual legal interest of 12% from the date of the criminal judgment until full payment, and court fees and expenses.

The complainant submitted the criminal judgment, related notifications, invoices, payment receipts and a certificate confirming that no appeal had been filed.

The civil court found that the final criminal judgment had established the defendants’ responsibility for fraudulently obtaining Dh59,153 from the complainant. As there was no evidence that the money had been returned, the court ordered the defendants to repay the full amount.

The court also recognised the financial burden caused by the defendants’ conduct, including the need to take legal action to recover the money. It awarded Dh2,300 for financial loss and a further Dh1,200 for non-financial harm, including emotional distress, anxiety and loss of peace of mind. The total compensation was set at Dh3,500, in addition to repayment of the original Dh59,153.

An Abu Dhabi court has ordered a bank to refund Dh92,854 to a customer, close his credit card account and confirm that he has no outstanding liability after the lender failed to provide documentary evidence supporting the interest and fees it had charged.

The court also ordered the bank to pay annual interest of 3 per cent on the refund from the date the lawsuit was filed until payment, subject to a cap equal to the principal amount.

The customer told the court that he had applied for financing from the bank in 2013 and received a credit card with a Dh50,000 limit. He maintained that he had settled all his dues, including payments exceeding the amount owed, but the bank continued to demand further sums.

A court-appointed banking expert examined the account statements and found that the bank could not produce the original credit card application or documents establishing the interest rate and fees agreed with the customer. The bank attributed the absence of these records to a fire at the premises where its documents were stored.

The expert recalculated the account using simple legal interest, excluding compound interest and charges that the bank could not demonstrate had been agreed. The review showed that the customer had made withdrawals totalling Dh1.403 million and payments of Dh1.605 million. After adjusting the account, the expert concluded that the bank owed him Dh92,854.

Court Accepts Expert's Findings

The court accepted the expert's conclusions, finding that the assessment was based on the account statements and supported by adequate technical reasoning. It noted that the expert had addressed the bank's objections and that the lender had produced no evidence sufficient to undermine the report.

The court also found that the bank had repeatedly delayed payment despite the amount being due to the customer. It ordered the lender to refund Dh92,854, pay the stipulated interest, clear all outstanding credit card liabilities, close the account and issue a certificate confirming that the customer had no remaining debt.

The bank was further directed to bear the court costs and pay Dh200 in legal fees. The court dismissed the customer's remaining claims.

An Ajman appeal court has acquitted an Egyptian woman of embezzlement, overturning her earlier conviction after finding inconsistencies in the complainant’s account and insufficient evidence to establish that she had received the money in question.

The woman, a retired dentist who is now a homemaker, was convicted by a court of first instance in July and fined Dh5,000, in addition to court fees. She denied knowing the complainant, receiving any money from him or participating in the WhatsApp conversations attributed to her.

The complainant alleged that the woman had received money under an agency arrangement but subsequently misappropriated it. However, the appeal court found that his statements about how the money had been handed over and the amount allegedly paid were unclear and inconsistent.

The defence also challenged the authenticity of WhatsApp screenshots submitted as evidence. It pointed out that the telephone number displayed in the images began with ‘05’ but did not include the UAE’s international dialling code, +971. This raised questions about whether the screenshots accurately represented the original conversations.

The defence argued that the images could have been altered using photo-editing software and questioned whether they were coloured copies rather than original electronic records. It also maintained that the screenshots could not reliably establish who had created or sent the messages.

No forensic report was presented to verify that the conversations originated from the woman’s telephone or WhatsApp account. She had consistently denied the allegations, including any knowledge of the number associated with the messages, from the time she was questioned by police.

The court’s concerns extended beyond the digital evidence. It found no reliable documents or supporting witness testimony to substantiate the complainant’s version of events. The case papers also contained no independent police inquiries confirming the circumstances of the alleged transaction or establishing the authenticity of the accusation.

The judges questioned why the complainant would have entrusted a substantial sum to the woman when the available evidence disclosed no established relationship between them. They also noted the absence of material showing that the complainant was engaged in commercial activities or that the two parties had entered into a documented business transaction.

The first-instance court had concluded that the allegation was supported by the complainant’s account, the woman’s purported confession and other circumstantial evidence. On appeal, however, the defence disputed the claim that she had confessed, arguing that the case file contained no such admission. It also maintained that she had not been questioned by prosecutors and had consistently denied the accusation in her police statement and before the trial court.

The woman was charged with breach of trust under Article 453 of the UAE Crimes and Penalties Law. Her defence argued that establishing the offence required proof that the money had first been entrusted to her through a recognised relationship of trust, such as an agency arrangement.

Without reliable evidence that the complainant had handed over the money, the defence maintained, it could not be established that the funds had entered the woman’s custody or that she had subsequently dealt with them as her own.

The appeal court reiterated that criminal convictions must rest on certainty rather than suspicion or speculation. Where the evidence is unreliable or insufficient to establish guilt, the accused must be acquitted.

The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the evidence did not justify upholding the conviction. It overturned the first-instance judgment and declared the woman not guilty.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a man to repay Dhs180,266 to another individual after WhatsApp messages and emails established his acknowledgement of the debt.

The dispute arose from a relationship of trust between the two parties. The defendant had approached the plaintiff for financial assistance, prompting the latter to secure a loan from a financing institution and transfer the funds to him.

According to the case details, the plaintiff obtained Dhs160,000 through the financing facility and transferred the amount to the defendant. The parties subsequently agreed that the defendant would cover the full financing obligation, bringing the total debt to Dhs192,266.

The plaintiff told the court that the agreement, including the repayment arrangement, had been acknowledged through emails and WhatsApp conversations. He also claimed that the defendant had offered a distinctive vehicle registration number as security but later sold the vehicle and retained the proceeds without settling the outstanding debt.

The defendant had repaid only Dhs12,000, leaving Dhs180,266 unpaid.

The plaintiff approached the court to recover the outstanding balance, while reserving his right to pursue additional claims for damages, court fees, expenses and legal costs.

In its ruling, the court relied on the correspondence exchanged between the parties, which included clear acknowledgements of the debt and confirmation that the defendant had received Dhs160,000.

The court concluded that the evidence established the loan transaction and the total amount payable at Dhs192,266. After deducting the Dhs12,000 already repaid, it ordered the defendant to pay the remaining Dhs180,266.

A federal judge in Manhattan has rejected a joint request by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Gemini, a cryptocurrency exchange founded by twin brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, to overturn a $5 million settlement reached during the Biden administration.

In a ruling, US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the agency and Gemini Trust Co had failed to meet the legal standards required to set aside the settlement, which resolved a lawsuit over statements made by Gemini during the CFTC’s review of a proposed bitcoin futures contract.

The CFTC sued Gemini in 2022, alleging that the company had made false or misleading statements during the agency’s review of the proposed futures product. The settlement, reached in January 2025, came towards the end of Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration, shortly before a trial was due to begin.

Republican President Donald Trump’s administration has adopted a more industry-friendly and narrower approach to enforcement in the cryptocurrency sector.

In May, the CFTC and Gemini jointly asked Hellerstein, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, to vacate the settlement and the court order approving it. They argued in a court filing that the agency would not have brought the 2022 case under the enforcement priorities and standards adopted by the Trump administration.

The filing also argued that regulators should not have accused Gemini of making false statements in connection with its bitcoin futures business. The CFTC and Gemini said the agency had resorted to “inappropriate tactics” to pursue the lawsuit.

Gemini agreed that it would not seek a refund of the $5 million penalty if the settlement were set aside.

Hellerstein said Gemini had contested the CFTC’s allegations for more than three years before voluntarily agreeing to settle the case. He added that the agency’s current position on the matter did not justify vacating the settlement.

The Winklevoss twins became widely known after accusing Mark Zuckerberg of stealing their idea for Facebook. The dispute was resolved in 2008 through a settlement that included cash and company shares.

The Dubai Court of Appeal has acquitted a businessman and a lawyer in a Dh13.5 million breach of trust case, overturning a lower court's ruling that sentenced both defendants to one year in prison and ordered them to pay a Dh13.5 million fine jointly.

The appeals court found that witness testimony and authenticated documents supported the defence's account that the cheque at the centre of the dispute had been voluntarily returned as part of a commercial settlement. It concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish criminal liability.

The case arose from a commercial transaction involving the supply of fuel and gas between two companies. The prosecution alleged that the lawyer had misappropriated a cheque entrusted to her law firm, while the businessman was accused of colluding with her to commit the offence.

Cheque Deposited As Security

The dispute stemmed from a $6 million fuel and gas transaction that left an outstanding balance of Dh13.5 million. To secure the debt, the businessman deposited a cheque for the same amount with a law firm following discussions with the other party.

Under the arrangement, the firm was authorised to initiate legal proceedings if the outstanding amount remained unpaid after four months.

When the deadline expired without payment, the cheque was presented to the bank but returned unpaid because of insufficient funds and a discrepancy in the signature.

The complainant subsequently returned the cheque to the law firm so that a police complaint could be filed, alleging that it had been issued in bad faith.

Settlement And Return Of Cheque

The parties later reached an amicable settlement and met at the law firm to formalise their agreement. Evidence presented during the appeal proceedings indicated that the complainant voluntarily handed the original cheque back to the businessman in the presence of law firm employees. The businessman signed a receipt acknowledging that he had received the cheque.

The settlement was subsequently documented in writing, recording the parties' agreement to return the cheque and bring related legal proceedings to an end. The lawyer also contacted the police station formally to seek the withdrawal or closure of the earlier complaint.

The defence relied on the settlement agreement, official records and authenticated documents to argue that the commercial dispute had been resolved and that the cheque's return was voluntary.

Complainant Later Alleged Breach Of Trust

Despite the settlement and the documented handover, the complainant later alleged that the cheque had not been returned and accused the lawyer of breach of trust. The businessman was also accused of participating in the alleged offence.

The lower court convicted both defendants, imposing one-year prison sentences and ordering them to pay a Dh13.5 million fine jointly.

Both appealed against the verdict, arguing that the prosecution's allegations were contradicted by witness testimony and documentary evidence confirming the return of the cheque under the settlement.

Court Finds Evidence Insufficient

The Court of Appeal accepted the defence evidence and overturned the convictions, acquitting both defendants.

The court emphasised that a disputed commercial transaction does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. An offence must be proved through sufficient evidence meeting the applicable legal standard, while the presumption of innocence remains in place unless guilt is established.

The judges found that witness testimony, supported by authenticated and officially attested documents, corroborated the defence's account of the voluntary return of the cheque as part of the settlement.

Concluding that the evidence failed to establish the alleged criminal offence, the court acquitted both defendants, setting aside the lower court's convictions and sentences.

The ruling underscores the distinction between a commercial disagreement and criminal conduct, highlighting the importance of documentary evidence and the requirement to establish criminal liability through proof that meets the applicable legal threshold.

For expatriates leaving the UAE, arranging flights and accommodation in their next destination is often easier than settling outstanding financial obligations. Bank accounts, credit cards, personal loans, security cheques and pending refunds can become complicated if they are left until the final days of residency.

Failing to plan an orderly financial exit can lead to frozen accounts, mounting charges, debt recovery action and difficulties accessing money from abroad. In some circumstances, unresolved liabilities may also result in legal proceedings or travel restrictions.

However, leaving the UAE with outstanding debt does not automatically amount to a criminal offence. The consequences depend on the nature of the liability, the circumstances of the case and whether any legal proceedings have been initiated.

Settling Debt From Abroad Requires Communication

Expats can generally make arrangements to repay UAE bank debts after relocating overseas. The important step is to contact the lender before departure rather than leaving outstanding balances unattended.

Residents preparing to leave should obtain an updated statement of their liabilities, confirm the amount required to settle each debt and request written instructions for making payments from overseas. Those able to clear a balance in one payment may also ask whether the bank is willing to offer a reduced settlement amount.

Where an account needs to remain open to facilitate repayments, the bank should confirm whether it can be maintained after the customer's residency status changes. Any applicable fees, minimum balance requirements and overseas access arrangements should be clarified in advance.

Payment records should be retained, and once a liability has been fully settled, the borrower should request written confirmation from the bank. If a dispute or legal case already exists, professional legal advice may be necessary to establish the appropriate procedure for resolving it without returning to the UAE.

Unpaid liabilities should not be ignored. Depending on the circumstances and applicable legal procedures, creditors may pursue recovery through the courts, while certain cases may involve travel restrictions or other legal consequences. The existence of a debt alone does not mean that a travel ban or arrest warrant automatically follows.

Start Preparing Months Before Departure

Financial arrangements should ideally begin two to three months before the planned departure date. This gives residents time to identify outstanding obligations, obtain final bills, recover deposits and close accounts without disrupting essential payments.

The first step is to prepare a complete inventory of financial commitments. This should include current and savings accounts, personal loans, credit cards, overdrafts, vehicle finance, instalment plans and buy-now-pay-later obligations.

Security cheques also require attention. These may have been issued in connection with bank loans, vehicle finance or rental agreements. Residents should establish whether any remain outstanding and obtain confirmation of their cancellation or return when the underlying obligation has been discharged.

A comprehensive list helps prevent smaller liabilities from being overlooked during the move.

Recover Deposits Before Closing Bank Accounts

Residents may be entitled to refunds from utility providers, telecommunications companies and other service providers when closing their accounts. These payments can be delayed or complicated if the linked bank account has already been shut.

Before closing an account, expats should confirm whether electricity and water deposits, mobile service refunds, internet deposits and other outstanding payments have been processed. They should also check whether any final bills remain unpaid.

Account closures should be timed around these transactions. If refunds or other payments are still pending, residents should arrange an alternative receiving account or ask their bank whether an account can be retained after they become non-residents.

Understand The Impact Of Visa Cancellation

Changes in residency status can affect access to banking services. Following the cancellation of a UAE residence visa and Emirates ID, a bank may require updated documentation or review the terms under which an account can remain open.

Depending on its policies and the customer's circumstances, the bank may restrict certain services or require the account holder to convert the account to an arrangement permitted for non-residents.

Residents should therefore contact their banks before their residency status changes. They should establish what documentation will be needed, whether international transfers will remain available and whether the account will be subject to additional charges or minimum balance requirements.

Assuming that an account will continue to operate normally after departure can create unnecessary complications, particularly when money is still due to be received.

Plan Final Salary Payments And Gratuity

Final salary payments and end-of-service benefits require careful coordination, especially when the employee has outstanding borrowing with the same bank that receives the payment.

Depending on the loan agreement, banking arrangements and applicable rules, a bank may have contractual or legal rights affecting funds credited to an account. The precise position should be confirmed rather than assumed.

Employees should ask their employer when their final settlement is expected and obtain an updated payoff figure from the lender. They should also clarify how outstanding loans will be handled and whether any amount may be deducted, withheld or applied towards the debt.

Where possible, these arrangements should be agreed in writing before the final salary or gratuity is credited. This can help avoid unexpected account restrictions and disputes over access to funds needed for relocation.

Credit Cards Must Be Formally Closed

Paying off a credit card and cutting it up does not necessarily close the account. Formal cancellation is essential, and any associated direct debits or recurring payments should also be reviewed.

Closing a current account at a bank does not automatically terminate a separate credit card facility, even when both services are provided by the same institution. An unused card may continue to attract annual fees or other charges, while unpaid amounts can accumulate interest and late payment penalties.

Residents should request written confirmation that each card has been cancelled and that no outstanding balance remains. They should also check whether any supplementary cards or linked payment arrangements need to be terminated.

The same principle applies to accounts that appear to be dormant or fee-free. Customers should review the applicable terms and confirm that no further charges can arise after departure.

Obtain Written Clearance From Every Bank

Verbal assurances are not a substitute for formal documentation. Before leaving the UAE, residents should seek a clearance or no-liability letter from each relevant lender confirming that the outstanding balance has been settled.

Where applicable, the documentation should also confirm the cancellation or return of security cheques and the closure of associated credit facilities.

These records can be important if a payment is later disputed, an account remains active by mistake or a creditor raises a claim after the customer has relocated. Copies of settlement statements, payment receipts, cancellation requests and bank correspondence should be stored securely and remain accessible from abroad.

Residents should also update their overseas contact details with banks and other financial institutions to ensure that important notices and final statements reach them.

Keep An Account Open If Necessary

Closing every UAE bank account before departure may not always be practical. Residents awaiting a final salary payment, gratuity, deposit refund or other outstanding transfer may need to retain access to an account temporarily.

They should ask the bank whether it permits non-residents to maintain an account and, if so, what conditions apply. These may include minimum balances, account fees, documentation requirements and restrictions on certain services.

If retaining the account is not possible, an alternative arrangement should be made before departure to receive the outstanding funds. The decision should be based on the bank's confirmed requirements rather than an assumption that the account will remain available indefinitely.

Unused cheque books should also be dealt with properly. Some banks require customers to return unused cheques before an account can be closed, so this requirement should be checked in advance.

Consider Tax Exposure In The Destination Country

An orderly financial departure involves more than clearing UAE liabilities. Expats moving to countries with different tax systems should also assess the potential tax consequences of transferring their investments and assets.

Property, shares and other investments accumulated during years of overseas employment may generate tax liabilities after relocation. The treatment depends on the destination country's legislation, the individual's tax residency, the type of asset and the relevant acquisition and disposal rules.

In some jurisdictions, the tax calculation may take account of gains accrued before the individual became tax-resident there. In others, different rules, exemptions or valuation provisions may apply. Expats should not assume that gains accumulated while living in the UAE will automatically remain outside the tax net after they move.

Before selling or transferring investments, residents should obtain advice on the destination country's rules and the timing of any disposal. Selling assets before departure and reinvesting afterwards may be worth examining in certain circumstances, but it is not a universal solution. Transaction costs, local tax rules, investment risks and any applicable anti-avoidance provisions should be considered before making a decision.

Property investments require particular care because selling can involve substantial transaction costs and separate tax considerations. Whether to sell before relocating or retain the asset should be assessed individually.

Keep Your UAE Mobile Number Until Accounts Are Closed

A UAE mobile number may remain linked to bank verification systems, utility accounts, online services and other essential arrangements. Cancelling it too early can make it difficult to receive authentication codes, access accounts or complete closure procedures.

Residents should therefore confirm that their banking, telecommunications, broadband and utility accounts have been settled or transferred before disconnecting the number. They should also update their contact details wherever necessary and check that they can access online banking from their new country.

After departure, it is sensible to review bank statements and credit records periodically, where access is available, to identify any unexpected charges or unresolved accounts.

Leaving the UAE does not have to become a prolonged financial exercise. By contacting banks early, settling or formally restructuring liabilities, securing written clearances and planning for pending payments and overseas tax obligations, departing residents can reduce the risk of costly surprises long after their move.

BR Shetty, the founder of NMC Healthcare and UAE Exchange, has filed a $15 billion lawsuit against Bank of Baroda and 25 other defendants, alleging that fraudulent transactions involving his businesses were facilitated by the lender and that he was wrongly held liable for guarantees he claims he never signed.

The suit, filed in the Bombay High Court on Tuesday, seeks $5 billion each in direct damages, consequential losses and compensation for alleged reputational harm. According to Reuters, which reviewed the court filing, Shetty’s allegations include forged signatures, disputed fund transfers and the alleged failure of bank officials to act on repeated money-laundering alerts.

Bank of Baroda said on Wednesday that it had not received formal service of the lawsuit and could not comment on allegations that had yet to be tested in court. The lender said it would defend the case firmly if served, while continuing recovery proceedings against Shetty over approximately Rs28 billion in outstanding dues.

The legal action adds another dimension to the protracted fallout from the collapse of NMC Health, once the largest private healthcare provider in the Gulf. The company entered administration in 2020 after disclosing debts of $6.6 billion, substantially exceeding earlier estimates of $2.1 billion.

The dispute now brings questions over banking controls, corporate transactions and personal guarantees into focus, with Shetty and the bank advancing sharply different accounts of their financial dealings.

Disputed Guarantees At The Heart Of The Case

A central element of Shetty’s claim concerns personal guarantees and other documents that he alleges bear forged signatures. He contends that Bank of Baroda relied on these documents to pursue him for liabilities without adequately establishing whether he had authorised the commitments.

Personal guarantees can make an individual responsible for a company’s borrowing if the borrower defaults. The authenticity of the disputed documents is therefore critical to determining whether Shetty can lawfully be held liable for the obligations in question.

Shetty has also challenged the validity of certain account instructions and fund transfers, alleging that transactions were carried out without proper authorisation. He has asked the court to direct the disclosure of transaction instructions, account-opening documents, customer-verification records and information identifying bank officials involved in processing or verifying the disputed transfers.

The 26 defendants named in the suit include Bank of Baroda, 10 of its officials, former NMC executives Prasanth Manghat and Promoth Manghat, their associates and two Indian companies.

The requested disclosures could help establish how the transactions were initiated, what verification procedures were followed and whether the bank's internal controls were applied appropriately. Those questions remain allegations in the proceedings and have not been established by a court.

Allegations Of Fund Diversion And Compliance Failures

According to Shetty’s filing, Bank of Baroda acted as the NMC group's principal banker until around 2019. He alleges that the bank did more than process routine payments, claiming that it facilitated the movement of funds through group companies and entities presented as independent suppliers.

The suit reportedly alleges that bank officials enabled transactions involving “round-tripping”, a practice in which money passes through several entities before returning to its original source. Depending on the circumstances, such arrangements can obscure the origin, destination or commercial purpose of funds.

Shetty further alleges that the bank’s systems generated more than 100 money-laundering alerts that were subsequently closed. He claims the lender continued extending credit without adequate security and failed to disclose concerns about borrowings and transactions to auditors.

The allegations raise questions about the distinction between identifying suspicious activity and taking appropriate action in response. A money-laundering alert is a signal for further scrutiny, not proof that a transaction is criminal. Establishing whether the bank acted improperly would require examination of the underlying transactions, the information available to officials and the reasons for closing the alerts.

The lawsuit seeks access to records that Shetty says are necessary to substantiate his claims. The bank has not admitted wrongdoing in the new proceedings, and the allegations remain subject to judicial scrutiny.

Three Claims Of $5 Billion Each

Shetty’s compensation claim is divided into three categories: $5 billion in direct damages, $5 billion in consequential damages and $5 billion for alleged injury to his reputation.

The consequential damages claim relates to business and investment opportunities that he says were lost as a result of the alleged misconduct. The reputational component concerns damage he claims to have suffered to his commercial standing and goodwill.

He has also sought interest at an annual rate of 18 per cent from the date the suit was instituted until payment.

These figures represent the compensation demanded by Shetty, not damages awarded by the court. The scale of the claim means that the proceedings could become a significant legal battle over both the alleged banking misconduct and the losses attributed to it.

In addition to monetary compensation, Shetty has asked the court to preserve banking records and electronic evidence, disclose assets allegedly funded through disputed transactions, and impose interim restrictions on certain defendants dealing with assets in India.

His filing alleges that some of the disputed proceeds were invested in Avitis Super Speciality Hospitals and SMARD Building Solutions. The available reports do not establish that these investments were funded by illicit proceeds, nor do they indicate that the court has granted the requested disclosure orders or asset restrictions.

Bank Points To Recovery Proceedings And Earlier Litigation

Bank of Baroda has responded by emphasising its efforts to recover money it says Shetty owes.

In its stock exchange notification, the lender said it had obtained several decrees against him and was pursuing recovery and enforcement proceedings in India and the UAE. It also said the Karnataka High Court had restrained Shetty from dealing with or disposing of his assets in 2021.

The bank further stated that Shetty subsequently claimed in proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal that he was insolvent and unable to meet his financial obligations to the lender.

It also referred to a lawsuit in New York containing similar allegations, which it said was dismissed in July 2024.

The bank's position highlights a parallel legal dispute: while Shetty is seeking damages for alleged wrongdoing by the lender and other defendants, the bank maintains that outstanding dues remain recoverable from him. The existence of recovery proceedings does not, by itself, resolve the authenticity of the guarantees or the allegations concerning the handling of transactions.

$600 Million Settlement Adds Another Dimension

The new lawsuit follows Bank of Baroda’s agreement to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by NMC group companies and their joint administrators. The bank’s disclosure states that the settlement agreement was dated July 1, 2026.

According to Shetty’s filing, the settlement did not include an admission of liability. He argues that he was not a party to the agreement and that it does not extinguish his separate claims against the bank and the other defendants.

Bank of Baroda said proceedings against it in the Abu Dhabi Global Market were discontinued following the settlement. It also said judgment remained reserved in related proceedings against Shetty and a former NMC executive concerning allegations of fraud, wrongful trading and fraudulent trading.

The lender has maintained that the Bombay lawsuit does not create an immediate liability unless a court issues an order or the bank is required to make provision for potential damages.

The settlement and the new claim concern different aspects of the wider NMC dispute. The settlement addressed claims brought by group companies and their joint administrators, while Shetty is seeking personal compensation based on allegations that include disputed guarantees and transactions.

Questions Over Banking Oversight And Personal Liability

The case places several issues under judicial scrutiny: the verification of personal guarantees, the monitoring of corporate fund movements, the handling of suspicious-transaction alerts and the responsibilities of banks dealing with complex corporate groups.

Its outcome will depend on the evidence supporting Shetty’s allegations, the bank’s response and the court’s assessment of the disputed documents and transactions. The requested records could prove important in establishing who authorised particular transfers, what the bank knew and whether the relevant procedures were followed.

For Bank of Baroda, the case comes as it continues to pursue recovery of dues it says remain unpaid. For Shetty, it represents an attempt to establish that alleged misconduct contributed to his financial and reputational losses and that he should not be held responsible for guarantees he says are unauthorised.

Neither side’s position has been finally resolved by the new suit. Until the claims are tested in court, the allegations of fraud and compliance failures remain unproven, while the lender’s recovery claims continue on a separate legal track.

A cancelled subscription followed by another card debit raises questions about its legality. In the UAE, the answer depends on when the cancellation became effective and whether any valid payment obligation remained, rather than simply when the cancellation request was submitted.

Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, promulgating the Civil Transactions Law, took effect on June 1, 2026. It provides the general framework for contractual obligations and termination. Agreements concluded before that date may require assessment under the previous law, subject to applicable exceptions.

Consumers should follow the cancellation procedure agreed with the provider. Notice periods, minimum commitments and renewal conditions can affect when a subscription ends and which payments remain due. However, contractual terms must comply with applicable consumer protection rules; being written into an agreement does not automatically make every condition enforceable.

Article 237 provides for restoring contracting parties to their position before the contract following rescission or termination, with compensation where restoration is impossible. In a subscription dispute, this supports seeking repayment where money has been collected without a continuing contractual basis. It does not automatically entitle consumers to recover every payment made for services properly provided.

The law does not establish a universal period allowing providers to keep charging after cancellation. A later debit could settle an outstanding amount for an earlier service period or an enforceable cancellation fee. Consumers should therefore distinguish an unauthorised renewal from a legitimate final bill. An earlier agreement to automatic renewal does not, by itself, justify further renewals after that arrangement has been validly cancelled.

Anyone disputing a charge should contact the provider in writing, identify the effective cancellation date and request an explanation and refund. Cancellation confirmations, emails, account screenshots, invoices and card statements can help establish what happened. The request should specify the disputed transactions and ask the provider to confirm that future recurring billing has stopped.

If unresolved, a debit or credit card holder can raise a transaction dispute with the issuing bank under its procedures and deadlines. Acting promptly preserves the opportunity for review, although submitting a dispute does not guarantee reimbursement. The outcome depends on the cancellation evidence, contractual obligations and applicable payment rules.