R v Jain 26.05.17, Pg. 3

1. 1
IN HARROW CROWN COURT
Case No: T20150456
Courtroom No. 8
Hailsham Drive
Off Headstone Drive
Harrow
HA1 4TU
10.04am – 3.46pm
Friday, 26th
May 2017
Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOURNE QC
R E G I N A
v
SUNIL KUMAR JAIN
--------
MR J ROBERTSON appeared on behalf of the PROSECUTION
MS K ARDEN appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
--------
WHOLE HEARING
--------
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part, other than in
accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if
the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of
the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means
of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law
for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting
restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply,
and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

2. 2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Court resumes at 10.04am.
Jury returns at 10.10am.
SUMMING-UP
JUDGE BOURNE: So, this morning we are going to now review the prominent features of the
evidence with you, but you will understand that I am not going to take you to every single
topic that has been dealt with by the parties or indeed to many, or indeed possibly not even
very many at all, of the documents that you have in the bundles before you because you are
now all very familiar with the documents.
So, what I propose to do is to now sum-up the Crown’s case and the questions that were put
to the witnesses on both sides and then we will have a break and then we will come back,
and I will remind you of the defence evidence and then you will be retiring to consider your
verdict later this morning.
First International Group Plc is an FCA-registered asset management company based in
London; it was set up in 2006. Its principal activities involve the provision of investment
advice, asset management and brokerage. It was run from the beginning by Rupin Vadera,
who was the CEO, and his wife, Madhavi Vadera, who was a director.
She regularly attended FIG, as I shall the company throughout my summing-up, FIG board
meetings, between 2009 and 2013 and was paid consultancy fees for her services; those
invoices are set out in defence bundle tab 49. She had practiced as an accountant for over
30 years and worked for NATO in the period immediately before she returned to FIG full
time, she says in February 2014, but as you know there is a dispute about that, and the
defence say she was there full time from October 2013. She was tasked by Mr Vadera to
review processes and to implement cost-cutting measures at the firm and to determine what
seemed to be the problem with profitability.
FIG was a family firm where Mrs Vadera emphasised that employees were treated with
respect. The directors assumed that everyone who worked for the FIG family, as she called
it, would be honest, loyal and trustworthy. Mrs Vadera told you that the staff were not
micro-managed and were entrusted to do their jobs.
Mr Jain formally started work for FIG in the summer of 2010 and signed his contract of
employment on or about 25 June 2010, jury bundle one, page 69. It is set out at page 80 that
a bonus may be paid, absolute discretion and at page 81 performance-related pay included
an element of £8,000. A letter was sent to his home address at 53 Alfriston Road
concerning the offer with a salary of £63,000, jury bundle one, page 92. Although the

3. 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
defence produced an identical version of that letter, but dated 28 June 2010, and that is in
the defence bundle in tab four. In the earlier letter the title of FCA was given its later title
inferring that the letter had been printed at some later date. So, the FSA, as you know,
changed into the FCA in about 2013.
Mr Jain became the vice president of the company and was effectively the CFO replacing
Rajiv Sheth as the company accountant. He was the chief financial officer of the company
and was responsible for all financial transactions recorded in the company’s book and
including invoices, payments, receipts and transfers. He was solely responsible for entering
the transactions into the company’s financial system, which used the [Jay Sohan?]
accounting software.
Previously, Mr Jain had been employed by JCP, a company now called Orbit. He and others
from the brokerage and corporate finance division were recruited by FIG in 2010 as part of
their expansion plan following on from the financial crisis. Mr Doshi was in charge of that
company, and you heard a lot about him during the course of this case, but neither side has
chosen to call him as a witness; so you must not speculate about what he might have said
had he been called before you.
Mrs Vadera explained that as part of FIG’s controls, all financial transactions, including
payroll, had to be authorised and approved by two separate people who each had a personal
banking fob, which required a log-in, a username and then to use the fob you had to enter a
passcode, which gave a unique number to allow you to process the payment, which is then
submitted, and the second fob holder authorises the payment by following the same
procedure.
Mr Jain who, according to Mr Shroff, inherited Ankur Shroff’s fob when he joined the
company in the summer of 2010 before receiving his own fob on 14 February 2012, and the
other fob holder at the time was of course Mr Sheth. So, for every financial transaction one
person created the transaction while the other authorised it using their fob to access the
online system. The list of the authorised users and when they received their fobs is set out
in your jury bundle one at page 349.
Mr Sheth had one of the fobs, which he received on 19 September 2008. As I said, he was
the accountant at FIG before Mr Jain joined. He worked for the company for 10 years,
between 2006 and 2016. When Mr Jain joined, his role then changed to working in
corporate finance, then as an equity analyst before becoming the internal review officer. He
kept his fob in the drawer of his desk in the open-plan office and you will recall he drew a

4. 4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
plan showing where Mr Jain’s desk was positioned in relation to his. He said he was never
aware of any dishonesty by Mr Jain and trusted him completely.
Mr Sheth considered the activity logs, as we all did during the course of the trial, which are
all contained in jury bundle two and he found that on a number of occasions his fob had
been used by someone else without his knowledge.
He produced a schedule, which you have in your schedule file with those blue numbers on
the left-hand side corresponding with the transactions from one to 92, in which he indicated
in the left-hand column those occasions when he did not authorise a transaction on some
occasions when the records showed he was out of the country, away on holiday or one
occasion when he was in fact on honeymoon in India.
His hours of work were between nine to nine-thirty and 6pm, although he claimed to come
in late each day, and you will recall the point that was made that some of the authorisations
occurred nearer to 9am.
When Mr Sheth was abroad he would give his fob, his username and password to
Ankur Shroff, but he said never to Mr Jain. However, he said that Mr Jain knew where his
fob was, ‘Though I never saw him go to my desk’. Mr Sheth stated that he saw Mr Shroff
pass his fob to Mr Jain when Mr Jain joined the company in July 2010. At some point,
Mr Jain was told to order his own fob, which he did, and he agreed that he had only
mentioned that when he made his recent statement on 10 May 2017.
He was referred to the defence bundle, tab 64, and agreed that on 8 November 2010 he
called Mr Jain, who was on holiday in India, and he authorised a payment for £500 short of
£900,000. Mr Sheth said that in relation to the transaction authorised using his fob on
29 July 2011, jury bundle two at page 372, he was in fact in Kenya where his parents had
been born and he said, ‘I did not use my fob’.
Before 2010, Mr Sheth stated that he had been included in the payroll correspondence with
the external firm who were in charge. Subsequent to the fraud, which started on
7 February 2011, when the first payment was made to Mr Jain, which is transaction number
one on the schedule, it became apparent that he had been excluded from the email
correspondence, although he had not been told that that was going to happen.
Mr Sheth stated that until December 2010 he had been the only contact with Gary Davies
from Lubbock Fine, he used to forward the information to Mr Jain for accounting purposes.
Following the change, that you know occurred in January 2011, he was no longer copied in,
which he thought was strange as he was still required to authorise financial transactions, but

5. 5
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
he admitted he did not ask Gary Davies why that was, ‘After the change in January 2011, all
I saw was the summary sheet, but I had no reason to question why the new procedure was
being followed’. He said, ‘My salary was lower than Mr Jain’s, he was more important in
the company than me’.
Mrs Vadera was asked about the emails to Gary Davies on 21 January 2011 and stated
Mr Sheth was the accountant at FIG before Mr Jain arrived, ‘He should not have been
removed from receiving payroll-related emails’, she said. The effect of the email was that
Mr Sheth was not aware of any changes thereafter, giving Mr Jain full control over the
payroll process.
Ankur Shroff had the other fob, which he used to keep in his locked desk drawer, he had
previously been employed at JCP and then worked for FIG for nine years, between 2006 and
2015. His last position was vice president of the asset management desk and also the
coordinator for the IT, HR and various administrative functions for the company. He told
you he was involved in setting up the Jerome[?] system at FIG, which he called the back
office system.
He moved to India to look after his parents and gave his evidence before you over the live
link from Mumbai. He confirmed that Mr Jain worked at FIG between the years you are
concerned with, 2010 and 2014, managing finance. He said he was the chief financial
operator and in a position of seniority. He confirmed that he had one of the two fobs for the
company banking system until Mr Jain joined FIG in 2010. He said, ‘I gave him’, Mr Jain,
‘My fob at Mr Vadera’s request; after that I no longer had the fob to log in’, and you know
there is a dispute about this.
He said that he had considered the activity reports, which you have in jury bundle two,
between pages 361 and 624. Although the record showed that the fob previously issued to
him had been used between 2011 and 2014, he confirmed that he had not performed any
logins for either creating or authorising FIG transactions during that period.
He stated that he had surrendered his fob to Mr Jain for it to be, to use his word,
‘De-activated’; he passed his fob and passcodes to Mr Jain. Although he agreed he was an
alternate approver before the end, he said he was probably never required. He said that
Mr Sheth never gave him his fob even when he went on holiday. He was referred to the
defence bundle, tab 64, page 17, when Mr Sheth and Mr Jain were both on holiday on
3 December 2013. He said, ‘I did not know whether Mr Jain had his own fob, but he had
remote access to the system wherever he was and would not share his passwords with

6. 6
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
anyone’.
He could not remember the specific details of a meeting in January 2014, and you know that
has been identified more recently as having taken place on 7 January when a number of
people were said to be present. He recalled that Mr Vadera got angry at that meeting in
January 2014, but he said, ‘Not with Mr Jain’. ‘It was the situation’ he said, ‘And nothing
else, no tea or water was thrown at anyone; Mr Vadera may have thrown a glass, but not
intentionally at anyone’.
In early 2014, Mrs Vadera began to investigate to see why things were not quite right. She
started looking at human resources, contracts, loans and expenses to look at where FIG
could make savings. Initially, she was a bit uneasy and thought that the controls were not as
robust as they might be.
As time went on she told you she began to questions lines of expenditure, ‘We were
working together’ she said, ‘To find areas where we could provide cost-cuttings and
improve performance; Mr Jain produced spreadsheets analysing expenditure from the Jay
Sohan system’. She said that the only person with sole access to FIG’s Jay Sohan
accounting system was Mr Jain.
Mrs Vadera increased the share capital of the company to help with cash flow, Mr Jain
reduced costs and people were made redundant, she said from 23 in number in 2013 down
to nine this year, 2017. However, two issues raised her suspicions. First, there was a loan
to Mr Jain, which seemed to her to be excessive; she decided to question Mr Jain who said
to her that the loan had been approved.
Mr Jain was in a position of trust, and she had no need to question what he said. She stated
that she felt uneasy, but she was not sure; she formalised the position in a loan agreement,
jury bundle one, page 94 and 95. In her review, she identified other outstanding staff loans,
same jury bundle, page 97, and was concerned there was no repayment agreement.
All staff, she said, were required to start repaying, including Mr Jain. Mrs Vadera stated
that Mr Vadera’s authorisation would have been required for such loans and that he never
authorised any loans to Mr Jain. He said that his wife asked him, this is Rupin, about this in
May, June 2014, but he did not remember any such loan. Mr Vadera said that she should
ask Mr Jain because he kept the records.
The second issue concerned a payment of £15,000 to the LSE, the London Stock Exchange,
‘Mr Jain and I agreed’ she said, ‘That FIG would not pay this amount’. She discovered that
the sum had been paid from a spreadsheet produced by Mr Jain and he stated it had been a

7. 7
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
mistake. She learned that the sum was never paid to the LSE but was in fact paid into
Mr Jain’s bank account.
By May 2014, Mrs Vadera was beginning to get more suspicious when she discovered that
Mr Jain had increased his salary from £55,000 to £84,000 and this is the offence alleged
against Mr Jain in count three.
Gary Davies from Lubbock Fine told you that he received an email, jury bundle one,
page 59, from Mr Jain on St George’s Day, 23 April, informing him that his salary had been
increased in that way.
She questioned Mr Jain who said that it was something he had done to improve his
mortgage application, she told him to reverse it immediately; no such increase had been
authorised by her or FIG, as later confirmed by Mr Vadera. Despite being shown emails, at
the defence bundle tabs 25, 58 and 59, she denied that there was any oral agreement to
increase Mr Jain’s salary.
Reference to a salary email on 17 January 2014 was to request for a pay rise at the beginning
of the year. Mr Vadera agreed that Mr Jain’s salary, when he started at FIG, was £63,000;
he did not accept that he had agreed an increase in 2011 for that sum to go to £70,000. He
stated that he found it difficult to believe such a large increase for someone, as he put it, in
the back room. Those working on the front desk, as he called it, in other words, traders,
receive increases for pay-related performance; so far as Mrs Vadera and Mr Vadera were
concerned, Mr Jain was not entitled to any bonuses.
In June 2014, Mrs Vadera carried out an exhaustive review of all FIG’s transactions; she did
not know how to operate the online banking system. So, together with Mr Sheth, she
analysed all the company’s payments to narrow down any fraudulent or unauthorised
payments and contacted the company’s suppliers. She discovered a number of payments to
Mr Jain, Mrs Jain, [Suab Luhardia?], later identified as Mrs Jain’s brother, and Crossland
Partners, a company later associated with Mr Jain.
She discovered that references to loans on the system was £90,000 higher than the figure
provided by Mr Jain. The only payments to Mr Jain were his legitimate employment salary
and his authorised expenses. Additionally, there was no reason for Mr Jain to receive any
money that was meant for Travel People, an agency that FIG used for all its travel-related
costs.
She produced a schedule that you have in jury bundle one at page 30, later enlarged to be
easier to read at page 30A, showing a total loss of £903,702 to FIG; she discussed these

8. 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
findings with her husband, Mr Vadera.
Upon this dramatic discovery the directors of FIG instructed Mr Ravjani[?] at their
solicitors, Fladgate, to appoint the accountancy firm, Lubbock Fine, to independently verify
the data that Mrs Vadera and Mr Sheth had provided. Mr Sheth had no knowledge of the
fraudulent transactions as he said Mr Jain had used his fob without his knowledge, and you
know that is disputed by the defence. This exercise took place while Mr Jain was in Jaipur,
India, on holiday with his family.
Lubbock Fine undertook their own analysis and the accountant, [Pagjad Shah?] reviewed
FIG’s systems. He and his team considered three specific transactions, which are headed,
‘Sample one, two and three’. Those documents are in your jury bundle number three, for
schedule number 87 on the Jackson schedule at pages 947 to 949, schedule number 77 at
950 to 952 and schedule number 38, added at pages 953 to 955.
Mr Shah concluded in his report dated 7 August 2014, which you know was completed very
quickly and at short notice, that there were at least three ways in which Mr Jain had
managed to circumvent their controls.
First, by the creation and use of dummy invoices, entries on the ledger were said to be to
represent invoices, which did not exist. The payment that was made by the bank to meet
this dummy invoice was not made to any supplier, but to Mr Jain.
Secondly, there were payments to Mr Jain’s account for items of expenses of a type for
which there would not in fact need to be an invoice. There were examples in relation to
travel, brokerage income, wages or salary, accruals and other such expenses. Thirdly, there
was the substantial salary increase from £63,000 to £84,000 for which, according to
Mr Vadera, no authorisation was given, jury bundle one, page 59.
Mr Shah removed the figure of £75,000, which represented the loan, and another payment
for £10,000 from the sum reached by Mrs Vadera in her calculations, set out at page 30A,
which I just referred you to, and concluded that the misappropriated funds from FIG
amounted to a slightly lower figure of £812,072. His report was prepared on the
understanding that the payments were not authorised by the directors, and you know that
that is a central issue, which you have to determine in this case. He agreed that that was an
influential figure in reaching the opinion that he did. He confirmed, did Mr Shah, that he
had not personally be involved in the auditing of FIG’s accounts previously.
Upon his return to the United Kingdom, Mr Jain was confronted on 12 August 2014 by
Mr Vadera at the office and, according to Mr Vadera, after initially saying that he, Mr Jain,

9. 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
had nothing to tell him, Mr Jain then admitted that he had taken some money; he put the
sum between £100 and £200,000.
Mr Ravjani, the solicitor from Fladgate, explained that the High Court had issued an order
freezing all his assets and provided Mr Jain with a copy of the relevant papers. He was not
threatened or told to confess, according to Mr Vadera and Mr Ravjani, and you know there
is an issue about that, which you have to determine.
Mr Jain was dismissed from the company and escorted home by two of FIG’s employees in
order to retrieve his company mobile phone. Despite the offer of a meeting in the presence
of a friend, if he wished, the next day, Mr Jain did not attend.
About 10 days later, according to Mr Vadera, there was a meeting at a café near to the
office, the discussion centred around where the money was; according to Mr Vadera,
Mr Jain said he lost it on the IG Index. Mr Vadera suggested at that meeting that that was
incorrect, as it appeared a lot of money had gone to India. Mr Jain later provided copies of
his bank statements so that Mr Vadera could see the transactions.
At a meeting on 29 September 2014, according to Mr Vadera, Mr Jain apologised to
Danesh Doshi, who Mr Vadera said was present at the meeting as an arbitrator, using a
Hindi word, ‘Marco’[?], meaning forgive. He agreed, according to Mr Vadera, to repay
whatever he could, and he wrote down a list of his assets, which he offered in exchange for
the money he had taken, which was typed up by Mrs Vadera at Mr Doshi’s suggestion into
the letter that you have at jury bundle one, between pages 66 and 68.
Mrs Vadera recalled Mr Jain expressing remorse and saying sorry, she recalled that
Mr Doshi and Mr Vadera felt betrayed and could not believe that someone they trusted
could have done this to them. Mr Vadera said, ‘We need to know where the money is’,
according to him he said he did not tell Mr Jain to confess, but Mr Jain said he had lost it
spread betting on the IG Index. ‘Take what I have got’ said Mr Jain and slid his house keys
across the table, according to Mr Vadera. Mrs Vadera was not present throughout the
meeting but was in and out.
According to Mr Vadera, ‘Mr Jain made corrections to the document to show that he was
cooperating with us’. Amee Karlstrom, the office manager at FIG told you that she was
summoned into the conference room, either by Mrs Vadera or Mr Vadera, to witness
Mr Jain and Mrs Jain’s signatures on the document. ‘We agreed’ said Mr Vadera, ‘For the
documents to be sent to Fladgate for them to draw up a document and form the basis of
settlement for agreement’.

10. 10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Later, after what were described as protracted discussions with Mr Ravjani at Fladgate, in
which according to both Mr Vadera and Mr Ravjani, Mr Jain kept negotiating everything,
on 27 October 2014, Mr Jain and Mrs Jain both signed a settlement agreement capped at
1.1 million, drawn up by the solicitors, set out in jury bundle one between pages 68A and H,
having had, according to those witnesses, the option to seek legal advice. Mr Vadera signed
the document too.
Mr Ravjani described Mr Jain as being firm, not easily swayed and would not be cowed; he
was robust in expressing his views. At one meeting Mr Luhardia attended and stated that he
did not believe that Mrs Jain was involved. Mr Vadera agreed that he said in a witness
statement dated 5 December 2014, ‘It is true that I informed Mr Jain at the meeting on
29 September that FIG would not pursue a private civil or criminal prosecution if he agreed
to the settlement in the terms set out in the handwritten agreement, which did not reflect the
terms of the final settlement agreement’.
Mr Jain must have been aware, however, that FIG had already notified the relevant
authorities, namely the FCA, about his misappropriation of the company’s funds. FIG is
regulated by, to give it its full title, the Financial Conduct Authority; part of Mr Jain’s role
at FIG was compliance. He was registered with the FCA as FIG’s CF10 officer; this role
meant that Mr Jain had responsibility to report on various compliance matters to the FCA.
Mr Jain was fully conversant with FCA regulations, including money-laundering regulations
for which mandatory training is provided to all staff.
At defence bundle tab 32, pages one to 18, are a series of emails between 26 August 2014
and 6 January 2015, between Mr Jain and Fladgate concerning these discussions, proposed
amendments, and Mr Jain’s efforts to exclude his wife from the claims and the return of her
passport, which Mr Ravjani was asked about. Mr Ravjani agreed that what was called the
short confession at page two was drafted by his firm. He said he had been present when the
issue of Mr Jain’s spread-betting problems had been mentioned at the High Court at the
hearing on 19 August 2014 when Mr Jain had been represented by a solicitor and counsel,
and you will recall that the company had obtained what is called an ex parte freezing order
while Mr Jain was in India, without him being present at the hearing; but the return hearing
was on 19 August when Mr Jain was present. Mr Vadera confirmed that FIG had received
no money back from Mr Jain.
It is the prosecution case that between 7 February 2011, so just after the email, which was
sent to Mr Davies that we spent some time considering, and 10 July 2014, Mr Jain was

11. 11
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
responsible for 92 fraudulent transactions, that figure now reduced to 91 after the parties
agreed to delete the payment of £20,000 on 13 February 2012, which was repeated the
following day in which, for those remaining transactions, say the prosecution, Mr Jain stole
£818,702.
Additionally, before he began stealing the amounts, which are set out in that schedule or in
the schedules that you are now very familiar with, Mr Jain, as I have already reminded you,
sent that email to Gary Davies instructing him not to send any correspondence relating to
payroll to Mr Sheth, who was at the time the only other employee at FIG with intimate
knowledge as to the way in which the FIG accounting system worked.
Having received confirmation from Mr Vadera that Mr Jain was going to be responsible for
the payroll thereafter, Mr Davies told you that he followed Mr Jain’s instructions and did
not copy Mr Sheth in any further emails, although that also is in dispute because you were
referred to at least one email shortly afterwards, which did apparently include Mr Sheth.
The defence submit that Mr Vadera was included in the email chain and was aware that
Mr Sheth was being excluded from future email correspondence about these financial
transactions. The agreed position is contained in agreed fact number 12 as to what was
forwarded to Mr Vadera in the email chain.
However, Mr Vadera stated that he did receive the email from Mr Jain on his blackberry
phone when he was away from the office and did not see the email chain from Mr Jain to
Mr Davies excluding Mr Sheth from being copied in on the payroll emails in the future.
Mr Vadera stated that he was not aware that Mr Sheth was to be removed from the payroll
email chain.
I do not propose to take you again through the 92 separate transactions, or 91 separate
transactions set out in the Jackson schedule in your file; you have all the itemised
transactions in the FIG bank account ledgers in jury bundle three between pages 725 and
938 and the corresponding bank activity logs in jury bundle two, page 361 to 624, together
with Mr Jain’s bank statements, about which he was cross-examined, in jury bundle one
between pages 190 to 332 and Mrs Jain’s bank account set out in the same volume between
pages 333 and 339 and jury bundle one, 358 to 360. The FIG staff attendance records from
late 2010 until 2014 and the false invoices for Mrs Jain, Mr Luhardia and Crossland
Partners, jury bundle three, pages 939 to 946, and the Crossland Partners Ltd Companies
House documents, jury bundle one, pages 351 to 357, and the schedule, to which I have
already made reference, prepared by Mr Sheth demonstrating, say the prosecution, that

12. 12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Mr Sheth was not responsible for using his fob on all the occasions when he was said to
have authorised the transactions.
By way of example only, let me remind you of a selection of the transactions, starting with
number one, this was the very first transaction on 7 February 2011, the amount of £15,000
appeared on the FIG activity report, jury bundle two, page 361, as customer reference FIG,
authorised by Mr Sheth, jury bundle two, page 362, and in the bank ledger at page 730. In
fact, it was credited to Mr Jain’s bank account, at page 335, for which an invoice was later
found at page 939, for consultancy services from Mrs Jain. Mr Vadera told you that
Mrs Jain never performed any services for FIG and was not entitled to this sum of money or
indeed any sum of money from FIG.
Transaction number nine, and this is just an illustration, no more, on 23 September 2011,
£1,450 was paid to Crossland Partners, jury bundle two at page 378, activity log shown as
suppliers and the bank ledger, at page 765, entered by Mr Jain as commission paid, went
into the Crossland Partners’ account. According to Mr Vadera, Crossland Partners have not
provided any services to FIG. The invoice at page 941, in jury bundle three, ostensibly from
Mr Doshi, is said to be relevant to this transaction.
Number 30 in the schedule on 29 June 2012, £15,000 was entered as customer reference
office on activity log at page 426, but the bank ledger at page 812 shows paid to Kas Bank,
who were a bank used by FIG to settle broking transactions; the money went into Mr Jain’s
account. According to Mr Vadera there was no link between Mr Jain and Kas Bank and no
reason to pay Mr Jain for work relating to Kas Bank at all and in any event no invoice from
Kas Bank.
Number 40 on 27 December 2012, £20,000 was paid, according to the activity log at
page 463, to Mr Doshi, which the bank ledger at page 839 showed as Mr Luhardia, the
brother of Mrs Jain, with a false invoice at page 943, according to Mrs Vadera, which had
not been approved and authorised and for which there was no reason whatsoever for the
payment to be made.
Number 69, and I am just taking dip samples of these transactions, on 17 February 2014,
£15,000 was paid to Mr Jain, according to the activity log at page 554, customer reference
suppliers, which the bank ledger at page 895 recorded as commission.
And number 90, shortly before Mr Jain left to go to India, on 30 May 2015, £15,000 was
paid to Mr Jain, which the activity log at page 603 shows a customer reference suppliers,
but the bank ledger is left blank, page 909.

13. 13
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
As I say, the complete list of the fraudulent transactions, say the prosecution, and references
to where the details are to be found in the exhibits in your jury bundles are set out in the two
main schedules produced by the two police officers who at different times were the officers
in charge of the case. The total amount of what was stolen by Mr Jain, say the prosecution,
comes to the figure set out in count one on the indictment.
Mrs Vadera was cross-examined at length on behalf of Mr Jain; she agreed that her
remuneration changed from consultancy fees, defence bundle tab 49, to a salary of £100,000
when she worked at FIG full time in early 2014. She agreed that she had forgotten about
emails to her in February 2012 from Mr Jain referring to his loan for £35,000 and on
25 January 2012 to Lee Facey[?] at Lubbock Fine, and 23 April 2013, referring to the
£75,000 loan in a schedule of the repayment of staff loans well before 2014, and the relevant
documents are found in the defence bundle tab 45, 50 and 51.
She was referred to defence bundle tab 37, which showed that Mr Jain had provided the
figures of the loan to HMRC in his tax return for the year 2011-2012. Mrs Vadera said,
‘We made a lot of mistakes; in hindsight I should have reviewed all the audit documents. I
totally accept responsibility for the failings, it is my fault, I assumed all the loans had been
authorised, but I did not know that they were not until later. I trusted Mr Jain, I agree there
was no email from me to Mr Jain about whether the loan was authorised, but I did talk to
him’, she said.
She accepted that some employees paid back part of the loan, ‘However FIG’s paper
systems’, she said, ‘Were very poor and our record keeping was not good’. She was asked
about board meetings on 10 November 2011, 21 December 2012 and 23 December 2013,
which are set out in the defence bundle at tabs 22, 24 and 35, and agreed that there was no
mention of loans or bonuses, she stated that Mr Vadera’s note had been disclosed and that
FIG had cooperated fully and withheld nothing from the defence, who were invited to attend
FIG’s offices.
She accepted that FIG’s records were not kept properly, ‘We were led to believe by Mr Jain
that the losses were as a result of poor asset management, it was only later discovered that
the losses were in fact’, she said, ‘As a result of Mr Jain’s fraud’.
She was asked about standard template invoices dated March, April, June and August 2011
from Mrs Matthews, who is Veejee Matthews’ wife, he was employed at FIG, and those are
in defence bundle tab 45, and agreed that she was paid for specific pieces of work
authorised either Mr Vadera or the team in Romania; she stated that Mr Jain was never

14. 14
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
asked to provide fraudulent invoices.
She described Mr Doshi as a business associate of Mr Vadera, who introduced broking
clients to FIG. He was not, she said, the controller of FIG, either officially or unofficially.
She agreed that the records show that Mr Jain was previously employed at JCP on a salary
of £60,000 and a bonus of £40,000, and she confirmed that a number of employees from
JCP moved to FIG between 2006 and 2010. She was, however, adamant that FIG did not
buy the broking corporate division of JCP, but that FIG was expanding and recruiting
people from those two divisions.
She suggested that paragraph 3.1.2 of the Lubbock Fine report dated 7 August 2014, which
read, ‘Mr Jain joined FIG in 2010 when the company acquired a new division in relation o
securities’ should have said, ‘Created a new division in relation to securities’. She accepted
that there were good figures for JCP at the time their employees joined FIG and that the
company was still in existence today, though now called Orbit. The decision to recruit
Mr Jain was made by Mr Vadera as he was an extremely valued JCP employee who
Mrs Vadera described as, ‘Highly regarded, able, trusted and a clever man’.
She was asked about the Jay Sohan accounting system, which she thought was new in 2010,
but agreed that she only came to the FIG office a few times a month. She was referred to an
email dated 21 May 2010, defence bundle tab 42, which suggested that the system may have
been operating before Mr Jain started.
Mrs Vadera agreed that manpower at FIG reduced from 19 to 12 staff, and that is contained
in the document at defence bundle tab 56, Christopher Morris, Sandeep Pareck,
[Adeeta Sood?], Miss Gary, Ankur Shroff, Merrick Amit, Johani Raja and Rajiv Sheth,
were made redundant or resigned and their positions were not filled. Mrs Vadera said it was
difficult to let them go from the family business, but it only later became clear, she said, that
the losses were as a result of Mr Jain’s fraud over a four-year period when he stole almost
£1 million, more than half the company’s value.
In March 2013, Richard York, who was the compliance officer for the FCA, warned FIG,
defence bundle tab 68, of a potential financial problem, which may, he said, amount to a
rule breach, which according to Mrs Vadera would not have happened had Mr Jain not
stolen FIG’s money.
The FCA requires that £750,000 should be available in cash at all times, a letter to Mr Jain
from HMRC dated 5 August 2012, defence bundle tab 52, after a routine audit, pointed out
some minor errors and apart from issues with the PAYE, staff and travel expenses,

15. 15
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
everything was fine.
At defence bundle tab 35 the FIG minutes for 23 December 2013 considered whether
clients’ withdrawal was the cause of the financial problem. ‘It is now clear’, said
Mrs Vadera, ‘That the company’s profits had been eroded by £500,000 because Mr Jain had
been siphoning off FIG’s funds’.
The list of bonuses, in your jury bundle one at page 62, were compiled from diary records
and other notes. She considered those for Vishal Kabra for £25,000 and the figures at the
defence bundle tabs 16 and 17, and nothing for Mr Jain, at jury bundle one, page 62. She
said, ‘No bonus for Mr Jain was ever authorised and he should not have received one’.
Mr Vadera stated that the losses had a substantial impact on FIG over a number of years and
continued to do so. Although FIG’s legal fees were put at £68,960 at the time of the
original settlement, they rose after a second investigation until they reached £150,000, when
Mr Vadera finally put a stop to the continued expenditure.
Between 2010 and 2015 the profit for the whole company was £634,459 and the negative
effect on FIG’s income continued. Mr Vadera said, ‘It made no sense for one employee,
who was not even a director of the company, to be paid almost double the profit for the
whole company over the same period’. He said, ‘We lost a lot of business, mostly for
reasons directly related to Mr Jain’s activities, including four client portfolios, one of
whom’ he said, ‘Had a deposit at FIG of $130,000,000’.
Mr Vadera was also cross-examined about his relationship with Mr Doshi and his role at
JCP and FIG, he agreed that Mr Doshi had had problems in India with the regulatory
authorities, although he, Mr Vadera, was unaware that JCP’s accounts there had allegedly
been frozen, ‘JCP traded in the UK, but I do not know whether Mr Doshi was considered to
be a fit and proper person to carry on business’. Mr Vadera denied that Mr Doshi had
unofficial control of FIG, ‘I had no reason to be his front’, said Mr Vadera, ‘I have been
around longer than him’.
Mr Vadera agreed that there had been discussions in the last quarter of 2009 to buy JCP
‘Because of a financial crisis I decided a broader base would be better, I had met Mr Doshi
while engaged with First German, it was a German property fund. I first met Mr Jain when
I was at JCP’s offices in connection with First German. The problems Mr Doshi had or may
have had were not mine’.
Mr Vadera told you about his other companies, FIAM and FIIM, which he said had nothing
to do with Mr Jain. He told you he had changed his name by deed poll to

16. 16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Rupin Jitesh Vadera in 2005, defence bundle tab one. He said he did that because he had
been known unofficially as Rupin since he was a small child.
He was setting up a new company with Mr Doshi at the time and he was referred to emails
in the defence bundle tab two. Although the original idea had been to buy JCP, he said, ‘I
decided against it, a steady flow of employees came from JCP to FIG, including
Ankur Shroff’.
He agreed with the JCP valuations put to him from figures held at Companies House,
however he denied that FIG paid anything for the two teams, which joined FIG. He was
asked about the salary and bonuses of those joining, he eventually agreed that for settlement
purposes Mr Jain should also join FIG.
He agreed with defence counsel, Ms Arden’s observations about FCA and FSA at the
bottom of the notepaper and the change of the company’s address from Grosvenor Street to
Brooke Street and the fact that it must have been printed later, jury bundle one page 69 and
defence bundle tab four and tab 30.
He said that the original letter could not be found and a lot of tidying up had to be done,
Mr Vadera was referred to emails in defence bundle tab three at page five and agreed there
had been correspondence about JCP’s 2010 projections before Mr Jain joined FIG, however
he denied that Mr Jain was working unpaid for FIG before he joined.
It was suggested that Mr Doshi should not be seen as having any connection with FIG,
Mr Vadera disputed that there was a risk that the FSA would not allow FIG’s registration if
there was a hint of a connection with Mr Doshi. He pointed out that FIG had had an FSA
licence since 2006 and he repeatedly denied that Mr Doshi was in any way controlling FIG.
It was put to Mr Vadera by Ms Arden that he had agreed to pay Mr Jain’s bonus of £75,000
for 2009 and a joining fee of £500,000. He said, ‘Nothing was agreed in secret or that such
sums were not going to be paid through the payroll but would be paid in instalments as and
when there was liquidity in the company’.
He denied, did Mr Vadera, that further sums of £75,000 in 2011, £75,000 and £50,000,
making a total of £125,000 in 2012, and £75,000 again in 2013, together with some salary
increases of payroll had been agreed, making a total of £990,000. Mr Vadera dismissed
such a figure out of hand and said, Mr Jain was not an important asset to FIG, ‘I never
agreed to Mr Jain issuing dummy invoices for anyone’.
Mr Vadera agreed that Mr Jain’s salary was put at £63,000 in 2010 and was surprised to see
an email dated 25 November 2011, defence bundle tab 25, with an attachment created by

17. 17
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Lubbock Fine, based on a spreadsheet prepared by Mr Jain showing an increase to
£70,000.
He thought that a pay reduction referred to on 20 August 2012, at your page 60 in jury
bundle one, may have been performance-related, he had no memory of emails from Mr Jain
dated 1 August and 13 September 2013 requesting short meetings, having anything to do
with an increase in salary, defence bundle tab 58. So far as the purported increase of £4,000
in April 2014, he said it had not been agreed with him. He did say, however, as he put it in
answer to Ms Arden, ‘To help your client and to be honest, I do remember agreeing a
modest increase, but not to £80,000’, and he thought the increase may have been between
five and £6,000.
Mr Vadera was questioned about salary adjustments for Mr Pareck from £132,000 to
£92,000 and for Mr Merchant from £118,200 to £84,200 and for Mr Kabra from £90,000 to
£75,000, and for Mr Jain £70,000 down to £55,000, which were put to him in
cross-examination, defence bundle tab eight.
He categorically denied that he had anything to do with false invoices created by Mr Jain for
Lytton Grove Corporation, which he recognised as being a genuine company belonging to
Manush Patel, a man who he described as being of substance and having nothing to do with
Mr Doshi, defence bundle tab seven. He thought that the figures were entirely fabricated by
Mr Jain, even in relation to the exchange rates, which had been provided for April 2012 to
March 2013, which had been, as he put it, ‘Conveniently rounded up when normally it
would never have been such an exact figure’.
Mr Vadera had the same observations to make in relation to a letter from [Tea Tree?],
defence bundle tab nine, a legitimate company belonging to Sunil Ghandi dated 15 January
2013 for $159,000, defence bundle tab 12, together with the exchange rate, and you may
recall the misspelling of Mauritius in the address. He denied that the increase in Veejee
Matthews and Vishal Kabra’s salary was paid by false invoices, defence bundle tabs 27, 10
and 12.
The figure of a payment for £32,000 to Lytton Grove Corporation at the dollar exchange rate
for $49,725 was entirely, according to Mr Vadera, manufactured by Mr Jain, defence bundle
tab 10. He said, ‘There is no advantage to me’ and that Lytton Grove Corporation is not Mr
Doshi’s company.
It was suggested that the same exercise was carried out in 2014 for Mr Merchant, Mr Kabra
and Mr Matthews, defence bundle tab 11, and a suggestion in an email dated

18. 18
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
17 January 2014 about salaries, Mr Vadera denied that he had agreed a reduction or that he
had anything to do with false invoices to [Kinpar Jhed?], which was also, he said, not a
company controlled by Mr Doshi.
Mr Vadera was becoming increasingly concerned about email contact between Mr Jain to
FIG’s clients during the last two years, in other words after Mr Jain had been arrested and
before the trial started here at the Harrow Crown Court in May 2017. He said, ‘Mr Jain has
made it fit well to try and prove something, which had not happened’. He stated, did
Mr Vadera, ‘All this is new to me, the whole story is coming out now’.
The prosecution make the point that this whole account only emerged recently and
emphasised that no mention of any of this was provided to the police in interview. You will
recall the defence case is of course Mr Jain was advised by his solicitor not to make any
comment to questions from the police.
Mr Vadera said that a payment to Mr Doshi on 27 January 2011, recorded in the bank ledger
in your jury bundle three between pages 727 and 728 for £15,000, client introduction, could
have been a loan. A text dated 21 January 2011, in defence bundle tab 14 and a further text
in tab 15, were not, said Mr Vadera, to do with calling Mr Jain and discussing increases; he
never told Mr Jain to remove Mr Sheth from the payroll emails with Gary Davies.
He was asked about bonuses, defence bundle tabs 15 and 16, and said that no employee,
including [Tusha Karia?], had asked to get his bonus of payroll any dummy invoice by Mr
Karia, defence bundle tab 18, for [Hitesh Memmit?], tab 19, was not authorised by Mr
Vadera and he knew nothing about it. He accepted that there were advantages to employees
to be paid outside payroll, but never on his instructions. He said, ‘I did not look at these
records, we would sit down and discuss things orally, that was my style’.
In relation to Veejee Matthews he said, ‘I did not allocate him only part of his bonus
through the payroll, £67,000 instead of £87,000 and he did not ask me to do that’. The
payment to Elsa Matthews on 20 March 2011 for £20,000, your page 736, jury bundle three,
he said, ‘Seems high, but it had nothing to do with her husband’s bonus. She did work for
FIG in Romania, so I cannot be sure the four invoices’, at defence bundle tab 45 at pages
nine, 13, 16 and 20, ‘Are correct, not least because three of them post-date the March
payment. Any dummy invoices were not issued with my authority or knowledge. I may
have been stupid’, he said, ‘But I was not dishonest’.
Mr Vadera was asked about a payment made to Mrs Jain, at page 334 of jury bundle one,
from his Mauritian company, FIIN, a company, which had nothing to do with Mr Jain, on 19

19. 19
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
March 2013 for £25,000, defence bundle tab 29, and said, when asked about the payment,
‘It looked as though it was a payment that had been missed during the investigation’, it was
not a payment out of the alleged global sums being paid to Mr Jain and he had no idea why
it was made and not included in the 92 transactions on your schedules; it was not done, he
said, with his knowledge.
In relation to fees owed from the FERL companies, defence bundle tab 51, 55 and 68,
Mr Vadera agreed FIG waived €740,000 each year for three or four years, may be totalling
€3,000,000, he said, ‘I was not writing it off, we were saying we would not collect the fees
until the funds recovered’.
He was asked about number 55 on the Jackson schedule, which was a false payment of
£7,550, not to Travel People, but in fact to Mr Jain. Mr Vadera looked at defence bundle
tab 49, which showed that the payment had been picked up on page three in the Lubbock
Fine external auditors’ report who were working with the information Mr Jain supplied, but,
say the prosecution, without the knowledge that he had as to what was going on. Mr Vadera
agreed that Sandeep Pareck did some trades, but he disagreed with that and said that it had
been time, to use his words, ‘To part the ways’. He asked Mr Jain to investigate those
Sandeep Pareck trades, ‘Mr Jain presented his findings to me in early 2014 and said he
could find no wrongdoing by Mr Pareck’. Mr Pareck left, and his position was not renewed.
Mr Vadera denied that he had made any personal loans to deal in the stock market, he was
asked about a meeting said to have occurred on 7 January 2014. He said Mr Jain did not
threaten to be a whistle blower and no water or tea was thrown at anyone, although he said,
‘I accept I am short tempered’. Mr Vadera denied that his and his wife’s relationship with
Mr Jain was causing problems.
Mr Vadera denied the suggestion put to him that he had made Mr Jain confess or threatened
to have NATO arrest Mr and Mrs Jain on terrorism charges or have their daughter taken
away. He said, ‘I was not shouting at him or trying to frighten him, I did not touch him or
abuse him or his wife. I did not tell Mrs Jain that Mr Jain had two or three mistresses and
was spending money on them. I did not say something about buying a necklace for another
woman arising out of an insurance claim for a lost piece of jewellery. No pressure was used
to obtain a confession’.
Mr Vadera agreed that an email had been received by Mr Ravjani before the settlement
agreement, dated 27 October 2014, in which Mr Jain stated, ‘We will be defending
ourselves’, defence bundle tab 32. ‘It is not true’, said Mr Vadera, ‘That we failed to release

20. 20
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Mrs Jain’s passport for a month, it was handed to her father at his first attendance at the
office’.
In re-examination, Mr Vadera confirmed that he did not tell Mr Jain to remove Mr Sheth
from the payroll email chain, ‘This is the first time I have seen the documents put to me by
the defence, everything has been made to fit. I was not aware of this or a party to it; I never
checked the accounting documents and Mr Jain always showed me spreadsheets. I was not
involved in getting Mr Jain to create false documents and invoices to divert money. We did
not use the threat of criminal prosecution at all; we were required to report the matter to the
FCA, which we did fairly soon after we realised what he had been doing. So far as the
figure of £990,000 put to me on Mr Jain’s behalf, I have never authorised a payment of such
a sum to Mr Jain at all’.
Former Detective Constable Jackson, who had been the original officer in charge when the
proceedings began three years ago, but who had retired from the Force at Christmas and was
now employed conducting investigations for a private company, he produced all the
documents that you have in your jury bundles, including Mr Jain’s bank accounts and the
schedules.
The circumstances surrounding Mr Jain’s arrest on 11 November 2014 and the police
interview are set out in the agreed facts, which you have. Mr Jain was represented by a
solicitor, Andy Gilmore; Mr Jain was cautioned before the interview began, agreed fact
number six. He made no comment at all to Mr Jackson’s questions, which are summarised
in the agreed facts, number nine, letters A to J; he was charged on 1 May 2015.
Mr Jain has no criminal record at all, agreed fact number 11. Mr Jackson agreed that there
had been some issues with disclosure in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service.
However, there was no reluctance from the company, FIG, who stated at all times that any
impartial professional person could view their records; their only concerns were for
confidential information and how it could be handled once it was handed over. An IT
technician, [Alm Thanky?], provided a copy of all emails from Mr Jain’s Outlook account
with FIG to the police and the defence.
Finally, the officer who took over from Mr Jackson, Detective Constable Shutala[?],
produced the A3 schedules, the larger pages, for the years 2010 to 2014, some corrections
were made by agreement. All of the sums for the 92 transactions, less the one I have
referred to, were paid into bank accounts of Mr Jain, Mrs Jain, Mr Luhardia and Crossland
Partners, and as I have already reminded you, number 17 was the one exception for which

21. 21
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
there was a duplicate amount of £20,000 on 13 February 2012, the same amount the next
day, and could not be found, so it was deleted by agreement.
We will have a break, all right, so when we come back at 12 o’clock, I will then remind you
of the defence evidence and then you will be retiring shortly after to consider your verdicts,
12 o’clock please.
Jury out at 11.41am.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes.
MS ARDEN: May I raise two very small points?
JUDGE BOURNE: Of course.
MS ARDEN: Towards the beginning of Your Honour’s summing-up Your Honour referred to page
81, which was that of the jury bundle volume one, which was the payment related forms,
and it came over to me at any rate that that was part of his agreement, whereas of course we
know that in fact it’s said quite a bit later, two years later in any event.
JUDGE BOURNE: Certainly, well, I agree with that and what I would ask you to do is when the
jury come back in if you could just simply tell me that I have got that wrong, I will agree
with it, and the other matter?
MS ARDEN: The other matter was that when Your Honour was dealing with Rajiv Sheth’s
working hours Your Honour said that his start of his day was nine, nine-thirty, whereas in
fact I think we saw that officially it was 9 o’clock, he said he came in late, that was his
evidence, but officially it was 9 o’clock.
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, again, if you just mention that when the jury come back in I will agree
with that, of course.
MS ARDEN: I’m grateful.
JUDGE BOURNE: You understand and appreciate that I am dealing with a great deal of
information and inevitably I have got some of it wrong, certainly not intentionally and
certainly no intention to undermine any aspect of your defence case.
MS ARDEN: No, I appreciate that.
JUDGE BOURNE: All right, thank you very much, thank you.
Court rises at 11.44am.
Court resumes at 12.01pm.
Jury returns at 12.04pm.
SUMMING-UP (CONT’D.)
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, Ms Arden?

22. 22
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, before Your Honour moves on to the defendant’s case, might I just
raise two points with Your Honour’s leave? One is that Your Honour referred to page 81 of
the prosecution’s exhibit bundle, which is, you’ll remember is the document dealing with
performance-related pay and Your Honour said that that’s part of his, his employment
agreement. It is in fact situated there physically, but Your Honour will recall that in fact it
stands alone, that document, and that is it was, came in to, if it came in at all in to, because
it’s disputed as Your Honour has pointed out, because it’s disputed there was a
performance-related pay scheme, but that it’s in fact dated April 2012 and that’s the
document, one of the documents, which the defence say is, it’s just not possible because of
the, of the Financial Conduct Authority reference at the bottom, so that in fact it’s not a
genuine document. So, that’s the importance, it was not part of his employment contract.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, thank you very much for drawing that to my attention, well, members of
the jury, there you are, I made a mistake and Ms Arden has perfectly properly corrected it.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, forgive me, for saying that it, when Your Honour dealt with
Mr Sheth’s official hours of work Your Honour, I think, said it was nine, nine-thirty, in fact,
we established his official hours of work started at 9 o’clock, as did everybody in the office.
JUDGE BOURNE: Again, thank you very much, Ms Arden, for correcting what I have clearly got
wrong, and I am very grateful to counsel.
Sunil Kumar Jain, now aged 40, has a Bachelor of Commerce Honours degree from 1998
and has been a chartered accountant since 2000. He went to the United States of America
and became a qualified chartered accountant, passing their exam in 2001. He comes, as he
said, from a comfortable, his family are comfortably financially established and worked in
the family business doing accounts and running the business before he came to the
United Kingdom in 2004; because he was a highly-skilled worker he had a special
permission to be here, and he has been here ever since.
He started working for JCP in 2004 when he was 28; he was an assistant accountant doing
bank reconciliation and other duties. On 14 December 2007, he married his wife in Jaipur;
she holds a Master’s degree in Business Administration, and on 29 October 2010 his
daughter was born in India. He told you that he was a man of good character who had never
been arrested at all in the past. His parents were elderly, now aged 81 and 84 and not in
good health and they were still in India.
‘When I joined JCP I was on’, what he called, ‘A beginner’s wage, £24,000 and I had the
same bonus as I did at FIG’. He said, ‘I worked hard, long hours, and I was the finance

23. 23
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
officer at that company by 2007 with a salary of £60,000 and I became the CFO of JCP, and
I was on a bonus of £40,000’. And he said, ‘My gross figure was £100,000’ and referred
you to the defence bundle tab two at page nine.
He said, ‘I was the CFO of the company, and I was responsible for most of the financial
transactions of that company, looking after the back office’. He said, ‘I used to help the
brokers and I set up the counter parties’ and he said, ‘I was dealing with all the people and
the payroll, HMRC, Companies House and the FSC, now of course the FCA’.
He said, ‘Danesh Doshi was a director of JCP, and he was the executive director of the
company’. He said, ‘So far as my employment was concerned at JCP, there were no
problems, but the boss was Mr Doshi’. He said, ‘While I was there the company were doing
well, but Mr Doshi had, what he called, ‘Commercial problems, beginning in 2006 and he
was being investigated’, said Mr Jain, ‘In India’ and told you that the company’s assets were
frozen in Dubai.
Mr Doshi resigned as a director in December 2007, but he kept giving instructions to those
employed in the firm and he was using his private email address. In 2005, Mr Jain said, ‘I
went to India and when I came back later that year I saw Mr Rupin Vadera at JCP’s office,
he was sitting in a room with others’.
He said, ‘I did not know what he was doing, but it was something for JCP, Ankur Shroff
was working at JCP, and he left to go and work for FIG in 2006, they were operating then
from the same premises as JCP. FIG and JCP were officially two distinct entities,
unofficially they were working together, and I was instructed by Mr Doshi to help FIG and
my contact was with Ankur Shroff. Mr Doshi was preparing to move his business to FIG
and the original firm was dissolved, and the business was transferred to First Germany Asset
Management’.
He said, ‘Mr Doshi’s personal United Kingdom assets were frozen as well, so the transfer
did not work out and the business closed down’. He said, ‘The problem was freezing
Mr Doshi’s assets in the United Kingdom and the company’s assets in India, JCP were
making profits, in 2008 roughly $3,000,000, people were worried about trading at that time,
the time of the financial crisis with the bigger banks and so it was a difficult time; the
smaller firms like JCP were not suffering. Leading up to 2010, negotiations were going on
between the two companies’.
He said, ‘At the end of 2009 there was a decision to merge the two together and to close
down JCP’. He said that JCP’s value at the end of 2009 was $20,000,000, he said, ‘FIG did

24. 24
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
not pay for the transfer at all, my salary at JCP had become £63,000 and initially when I
spoke to Mr Doshi I was going to stay with JCP. But, Mr Doshi said it is important that you
go to FIG because FIG cannot operate the brokerage division and the corporate finance
division without you and I needed to transfer 150 counter parties to FIG, and Mr Doshi let
me speak to Mr Vadera. Mr Vadera refused to take transfer of the whole business, he only
wanted the brokerage and corporate finance divisions, and I said I could not move to FIG for
the same salary, £63,000 and in late 2009 they agreed to offer me better terms. Mr Vadera
wanted me to come with the business; otherwise he could not take the two divisions. He
wanted it to be secret and he did not want Mr Doshi to be associated with FIG because’, as
he put it, ‘Of the history. A lot of the team that went to FIG came from JCP and Mr Pareck,
Mr Merchant, Mr Kabra and Mr Matthews were all part of the brokerage team who came
from India. One by one’, he said, ‘Mr Doshi asked them to come to the United Kingdom’.
He agreed or, ‘It was agreed that I would be reporting to Mr Vadera from 1 January 2010, I
was told that the bonus for that year was £75,000, and there were very tough
negotiations’. He said, ‘And I wanted the same as I had had previously at JCP, Mr Vadera
agreed that I should receive payment of £500,000; I was a very important person at JCP’.
He said, ‘They could not set up the brokerage and the corporate finance divisions without
me; the business was reviving following the crash’. He said, ‘The sum of £500,000 was not
unusual and I was owed £75,000 bonus from JCP. Mr Vadera said, “Come and do the
business and you will get £500,000 and £75,000” and all of these agreements’, he said,
‘Were oral’.
He said, ‘It was a gentleman’s promise, trust me’ and he said, ‘Why would I move to a
different company for the same amount?’ He said Mr Vadera told him he would pay
Mr Jain off the payroll and Mr Jain said, ‘I was not simply back office, I was the CFO of the
company, just below the CEO’. He said, ‘I started officially at FIG on 5 July 2010, but I had
been working since 1 January’ and he referred to tab three of the defence bundle on page
five, the emails from Mr Vadera to him early in that year.
He said, ‘All communications were on a private email address, not a JCP address’.
Christopher Morris transferred in August 2010 and was copied in on private email addresses
and he was referred to an email to Mrs Vadera, ‘Please find projections of how much money
JCP was going to make in 2010’.
They already had an FSA licence, but they needed to apply for a new FSA licence. He was
referred to tab three of the defence bundle, and emails there concerning JCP’s profit and

25. 25
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
loss account. He said, ‘JB1, jury bundle one at page 69 is my contract of employment for
FIG, although it is dated 25 June 2010, I signed it later, and at page 92 of the same bundle is
the letter from Mrs Vadera, which was not signed on 25 June 2010’ and he referred to what
had already been highlighted in relation to the name of the FCA being at the bottom of the
page, not yet in existence until 2013, previously called the FSA.
Then he was referred to tab four, which is a letter actually received by Mr Jain himself after
5 July, and he said, ‘On that, of course, was the correct address for FIG and the FSA’. He
said, ‘There was no interview between me and Mr Vadera, I had no interview for the FIG
job and when I moved my title was VP, Vice President, Finance, and CFO’ and he dealt
with his responsibilities at the firm. He said, ‘I took instructions primarily from Mr Vadera,
but later on from Mrs Vadera when she came into FIG’s offices. She normally was there
every Friday, but she was working also for NATO and went to [Inaudible]’.
He said, ‘Mrs Vadera’s status changed in October 2013, and she had begun to come to FIG
more often’. He said, ‘Mr Vadera had agreed to pay me £500,000 and £75,000 for the
period in 2009 as and when’, before he agreed to join the company. He said, ‘All of the
discussions were oral, all of the discussions in relation to bonuses [inaudible] with
Mr Vadera were oral’.
He said, in relation to count two, when he asked to look at defence bundle tab five and the
correspondence with Gary Davies, he said so far as he was concerned everything was done
with Mr Vadera’s knowledge and consent, and we were taken through the email exchange
and also the email exchange in tab five, although we of course also have it in jury bundle
one at page 61.
He was asked about the fob system, Mr Jain said, ‘I never received or used Mr Shroff’s fob,
I did not know the password for that fob; he never told me that and I never used Mr Sheth’s
fob, I was never given his fob or his password’. He said, ‘I was issued with a fob on
14 February 2012, and I did not use a fob before that date, between the time when I started
in 2010 up until Valentines’ Day 2012 I did not use a fob’, although he was the chief
financial officer.
He said that, ‘The invoices passed through Mr Vadera’s hands, and he would tell me about
any payment that had to be made and then Mr Shroff and Mr Sheth would be required to
create an authorised payment’. He said, ‘I would not supervise the use of the fob by either
of those employees’.
He said, ‘I have no idea if Mr Shroff and Mr Sheth took their fobs with them’, he was

26. 26
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
referred to defence bundle tab 64, the telephone records, and made the point that the trial
had been delayed because of problems with disclosure, and pages one to 17 are the times
when he was on holiday; he was asked about pages 18 to 26 and those were transactions
whilst he was away.
Then some further pages were added during the course of the trial at pages 27 to 33, and he
said specifically, ‘It was orally agreed with Mr Vadera that I would be paid off payroll
£75,000 for 2009, for £500,000 as a joining fee and that I received further sums, including a
bonus agreed for £100,000 in 2010’, all of these were agreements orally with Mr Vadera,
‘75,000 and £50,000 in 2011, £75,000 in 2012 and £75,000 in 2013, all of these were agreed
orally with Mr Vadera’.
He told you about his salary and he said that it had been increased and he referred you to a
number of documents in defence bundle tabs 15, 16 and 21, and he said it was quite normal
for the salary increases for the staff to be increased by 10%. He said, ‘In 2011, six members
of staff had their salary increased in January and four had their salaries increased in
February, which were effective from the previous month’. By way of illustration, at tab 21,
he referred to Tusha Karia’s salary, which went up from £60,000 to £66,000 and he said,
‘My increase was in line with everyone else’.
He was referred to the list of salaries in 2011, at tab 25, and the pay sheets for him, in
particular at page three of that tab, and the amounts that he was receiving from January 2011
of £5,833.33, which he had multiplied by 12, came to £70,000; he said that was all agreed
with Mr Vadera.
He said, ‘In August 2012, I sent an email to Gary Davies with the salary reductions’, at your
page 60 in jury bundle one, and they were not actual reductions, they were simply the
amounts going onto the payroll. What was agreed was’, he said, ‘For me, a reduction from
£70,000 to £55,000 and the difference would be paid to me by other means and that applied
also to Mr Karia, Mr Merchant and Mr Pareck’.
He was referred to the notes of the board meetings at tabs 22, 23 and 26, and he said the
introduction of performance-related pay in April 2012, he said was not made up until that
year, and Ms Arden has already referred to the error I made previously about that.
He said, in relation to tab 24, the board meeting for 21 December 2012, the minutes of the
earlier meeting, referring to tab 22, were approved. He said, ‘There was no financial
instability and FIG was making money’. He said, ‘So far as the bonuses were concerned
they were to be shared by everyone, not just the traders’, and he said there was no policy of

27. 27
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
the company in relation to performance-related pay.
He was referred to further documents relating to salary, at page 60 of jury bundle one and
tab 58 and 59 and said that, ‘The sum of £4,000 had been agreed with Mrs Vadera’, in
relation to count three, and tab 59 on 25 March 2014, reference to his email with the latest
cash flow, ‘Following discussion last week, being sent to Mrs Vadera’.
He said, ‘We do not have the figure of £84,000 in this tab because we discussed it on the
phone. I kept sending Mrs Vadera the payroll every month and I decided to put all my
salary onto the payroll in 2014’, so he said, ‘August 2012, my salary had been reduced to
£55,000’, and he got 55,000 on payroll in that month, but he continued to receive the
increases of payroll.
He said, ‘We were supposed to get the difference in salary by a dummy invoice through
Mr Doshi’s companies or associated companies with him’, and he was taken through the
documents at tab six, tab eight, tab seven, tab nine, tab 10, tab 12, all in relation to those
false invoices, which he created upon Mr Vadera’s instructions in relation to the companies
Lytton Grove Corporate, Tea Tree and Kin Power Jet invoices, all of which documents you
are familiar with.
He was also referred to tab 21, he was asked questions about other employees who were
said to be receiving reduced payroll sums, but money coming from other sources and the
false invoices that related to them.
He was asked about tab 29 and the payments in relation to Mrs Jain for £25,000 and he was
referred to page 334 and the bank account showing a payment of £25,000 into Mrs Jain’s
account, which he said was, ‘A payment authorised by Mr Vadera from FIIM to my wife’s
account’ and he said, ‘I created an invoice for Mrs Jain and Ankur Shroff arranged for the
payment to be made’, and he was taken to a number of documents in defence bundle tab 29,
which you can consider again when you retire.
He was asked about bonuses and in particular defence bundles 15, 16, 17 and bundle two at
page nine, and I am not going to take you to all those documents, but you can consider them
again in due course, and defence bundle 18 and documents behind that tab.
He was asked about a number of people who worked for the company, Hitesh Merchant,
who was the most senior trader at JCP and went on to FIG; Mr Sudeep, Veejay Matthews
and others who were employed and documents in relation to them are found in both the jury
bundle number one and behind the defence bundle tabs 20, 21, 66 and 45, and he said that
‘Mrs Matthews, in particular did not work for FIG and so those invoices were false’.

28. 28
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
He was asked about the loans, and you will recall the loan agreement at page 94 of the first
jury bundle, ‘Was drawn up on 28 February 2014 and signed by Mrs Vadera and me; that
came into existence for accountancy purposes, and this was the only loan I had in total for
£75,000’.
Reference was made to a number of documents in the defence bundle at tab 38, which was
an email from Mrs Vadera concerning staff loans, the defence bundle at 48, which had been
created for audit purposes and nothing else, amounting to £182,866.68, and also documents
at defence bundle 45. He said that, ‘Behind defence bundle 45 are some of the invoices that
Mrs Vadera submitted for secretarial services’.
He said, ‘I am not hiding anything, I had no intention to hide anything from the auditors’,
and again he emphasised, by looking at documents behind defence bundle 50, defence
bundle 37, 51, that that was the position and defence bundle tab 48 relating to the loans.
He said, ‘FIG did not make redundancies’ as a result of what had been alleged to be his
fraud and you saw documents at defence bundle 61 in relation to some of those employees,
and he said that the employees had left the company, some of them, like Mr Odita Sued and
Mrs Vadera had said that, I think it is a she, was leaving to explore career opportunities
outside the UK; and further reference was made to other employees, including
[Gyant Raja?] at defence bundle tab 61, and having left and having not been replaced.
He was referred to documents at defence bundle 41 in relation to the board minutes and
defence bundle 53, further documents were found in the second defence bundle, which is
the thin black file, and in relation to documents behind defence bundle 62 concerning the
FIG accounts.
At tab 68, Mrs Vadera suggested raising capital in 2014 and reference was made to the
advanced warning of an anticipated rule breach in an email dated 12 April 2013, and there
were debtors with short-term loans for Vishula[?], Expert Tegris[?] and Samara[?], all of
which were those companies described as FERL companies.
He said that in April 2013 there was an increase in the share capital in pounds rather than
dollars and he explained the reason for that and he said, ‘This was nothing to do with me
that caused financial problems for the company’ and he referred to further documents at
defence bundle tab 63, defence bundle 34, and he made the point that in fact he was asked
by Mrs Vadera to provide him [sic] spreadsheets for latest cash flow, and this was not
something that was simply down to him and he said, ‘I had nothing to hide from
Mrs Vadera’.

29. 29
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Tab 34, page two, 13 March 2014, ‘Mrs Vadera wanted commission to be re-aligned as
salaries, she was advising me’ and further reference was made to emails from
Christopher Morris to Mr Jain on 20 September 2010, defence bundle tab 34 at page eight,
and an email from Mrs Vadera the following month, on 21 September 2010, Mrs Vadera to
him saying, ‘You have worked hard’.
Tab 39, there was reference to maintaining the spreadsheets, and tab 54, ‘An email after I
had left’. On page three was a request from David Bambi to Mr Jain and he said, ‘I was not
trying to cover my tracks’.
One of your number sent a note inviting the defence, while Mr Jain was giving evidence, to
link all of this material relating to what was going on at the company to the three charges
and the suggestion was made that it may have only had passing reference to what the jury
had to consider in this case. Well that, of course, is a matter for you, Mr Jain emphasises
that all of this is relevant to what was going on at FIG and demonstrates that he was not
doing anything dishonest, but that everything was taking place with the full knowledge of
Mr Vadera.
He emphasised, ‘I was not a whistle blower, what was happening in relation to me was
happening with other employees, which is why’, he said, ‘I am going into the background to
try and assist you, the jury, with these issues’.
He said, ‘The auditors, who were responsible for auditing the accounts, who are
independent, raised no problem at the time and I did not hide anything from the auditors’.
He made reference to the transaction at number 55 on 19 July 2013 in relation to the
payments to Travel People of £7,550, which he said had been picked up as a query by the
auditors, defence bundle tab 49 at page three.
He said, ‘I did give them the invoices and it was up the Vaderas to explain why the money
was being paid to me’. In relation to the exchange with Gary Davies he said, ‘I was not
being dishonest’, and he said, ‘I did copy Mr Vadera into the email chain in relation to the
allegation in that count’. Defence bundle tab 44, he said, was an example where Mr Sheth
was included in an email seven days later on 27 January 2011, and this was just before the
first of the 92 transactions, but there were no more emails to Mr Sheth after
7 February 2011.
He said, ‘My relationship with Mr and Mrs Vadera changed after Mrs Vadera joined the
firm in October 2013’, and he said, did Mr Jain, ‘We were losing client money and at the
meeting in January 2014 Mr Vadera got agitated and angry, that is when he threw the glass

30. 30
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
with a drink, which hit my head and I went home and I went to the doctors on 9 January and
the doctor advised me to go to the police, but I said no’.
In relation to count three he said, ‘It was not a lie, I was entitled to the increase on the
salary’ and he said, ‘I decided to put my salary through the payroll at this stage in case I was
sacked, I needed to be able to show what I was earning through the payroll’. He said,
‘Despite the unpleasantness with Mr Vadera on 7 January 2014, he continued to authorise
the bonus payments to me, which are set out between transactions number 64 all the way to
the end to number 92, and he said, ‘Mr Vadera did honour the payments’.
He was asked about the Jay Sohan system, and he said, ‘Well, that was already in use before
I arrived’ and made reference to documents behind defence bundle 42 showing support for
that proposition.
He was asked further questions about the fobs and the material behind defence bundle
tab 64 in relation to calls that were made abroad, or while he was abroad. He said, ‘I
returned from India in August 2014 and the confrontation took place with Mr Vadera at the
office’. He said, did Mr Jain to Mr Vadera, ‘Any money taken was authorised by you’,
Mr Jain said that, ‘Mr Vadera got angry and slapped me and said, “Can you confess how
much money you took?” but I did not confess, and I had the money from FIG with his
permission’.
He said, ‘At the time Mr Vadera blocked the conference door, there were two people the
other side of the door and he called Mr Ravjani into the conference room and that is when
the papers were served on me and Mr Vadera said to me, “If you do not confess you are not
going to leave the office”’.
Then he was asked about other meetings and he told you that meetings had taken place on
20 August, 21 August and at the meeting with Mr Vadera he said, ‘You need to confess’,
this is Mr Vadera, ‘Otherwise you and your wife will be arrested on terrorism charges, not
only in the United Kingdom, but in India and otherwise I will ensure a red corner notice will
be issued against your wife in India’ and he said he had spoken to a colleague of hers at
NATO.
‘Then he said, “Your daughter will be taken away, you need to cooperate with the penal
notice” and he said that what was going to happen to my daughter and my wife, and I went
home, and I had no legal advice, and I had no money at that time, I had £50 to live on. My
wife came back, we saw Mr Vadera in his office, and he made an observation about me
having two or three mistresses in front of my wife and spending money on them, which was

31. 31
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
untrue’.
He was referred to the documents behind defence bundle tab 32 and the email from
Tusha Karia in August 2014 and the history in relation to the negotiations that took place
between him and Mr Ravjani and the meeting, the important meeting on 29 September
when he said, ‘Mr Doshi was there and it was Mr Doshi who said, “Why can’t you
confess?” but I said to them’, said Mr Jain, ‘I have not done anything wrong, but I was
surprised to see Mr Doshi there. Further threats were issued, and I was very worried about
the pressure they were putting me on’.
He said, ‘I later learned that despite what they were saying, the matter was reported to the
FCA on 10 September 2014. When I signed the document in your jury bundle at page 68, I
was under pressure, and I was under pressure to protect my daughter and my wife and that is
why I signed the documents’.
He said, ‘I had no legal advice’ and he was taking you through the documents behind tab 32
of what was going on between him and Mr Ravjani in September and October and on one
occasion, on 8 October, he said, ‘I took Mr Luhardia with me for support, and I left the
meeting for 10 minutes and when I returned they said, “If you do not sign this, you will be
arrested” and I did not know how my parents would survive in prison in India’.
He agreed he owed £45,000 on his credit card and looking at those documents behind tab 32
and he agreed that the Tomlin order was made after he had signed the settlement deed on
27 October, the Tomlin order was made on 3 November, but seven days later he said, ‘I was
arrested and my solicitor said, “Make no comment”, that was the advice and it was also the
same day I was supposed to get my passport back from Fladgate and that created suspicion
in my mind that the police were acting together with FIG’.
He said, ‘On 13 November I made an application to set aside the Tomlin order and my wife
went to her general practitioner as she was not feeling well, and she went to the hospital’.
He was asked questions about his spread betting on the IG Index account, and he was taken
to the bank statements in which there were a large number of payments to IG Index. He
said, ‘I sent some money to India in relation to my flat, which was under construction in
Jaipur’. He said, ‘I was under great pressure, but I had not done anything wrong.
Mr Vadera said that his sister was an adviser to Gordon Brown and the chairman of
Santander and that would also be used to put pressure on me. I did nothing wrong, and I
could have gone to the police’.
He was asked specifically about the invoices, the dummy invoices, which you have in the

32. 32
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
jury bundle, and he said, ‘Mr Vadera helped with the drafting of those dummy invoices’.
Then he was taken through the Crossland Partner payments into his account, which you
have at your jury bundle one, in relation to the bank accounts and the pages from 194
through to 247, and the slight differences in the amounts, for instance in relation to
transaction 15, the payment was for £7,451, although the amount transferred was £7,450.
Likewise with transaction number 16, a slight variation in the amount from FIG, £7,070 and
the amount of £7,075, and he was asked about a number of the invoices that had been made.
He was taken through the loans and the various amounts referred to in the Jackson schedule
as loans and he was taken also to the loan agreement, he said, ‘I did repay two amounts of
£250, but I have not complied with the agreement’.
He was taken through the bank ledger for Mr Jackson’s schedule and agreed that there were
20 different ways, chosen by Mr Vadera, he said, to describe the way the money came to
him, and he was asked about genuine invoices, which were paid, for example, to
Travel People on one occasion, schedule number 61 for £6,383 and for the same payment
made for £6,385. He said, ‘I am not saying it was Mr Vadera who was using the fob, but it
was not me’; he denied that he was putting up a smokescreen.
He was asked about all those people who had been mentioned, Mr Sued, Mr Gary, Mr Raja,
Mr Shroff, Mr Merchant, Mr Karia, Mr Morris, Memet Ahmed and Rajiv Sheth and what
had happened to their money and their employment at FIG.
He was taken through the fob use, specifically in relation to Mr Sheth’s schedule, which you
have in your schedule file, and the way in which all of those transactions that he was asked
about between transactions 18 and 92, he said they were all either created and authorised by
Mr Shroff’s fob, which Mr Shroff had said he did not have, and Mr Sheth’s fob. He said, ‘I
have got nothing against Mr Sheth or Mr Shroff’.
So far as the sum of money of £990,000, which he said Mr Vadera had agreed to pay him,
he said, ‘There is nothing in writing about that at all, but I trusted him to pay me’. He was
asked about the slow way in which the thefts started and the gap of two months between the
first two transactions in February and transaction number three in April and the gap of a
further two months until transaction number four in June and he denied that he was waiting
to see if anyone had spotted anything before continuing to steal the amounts set out in the
schedule.
He agreed that he had lost £500,000 or more spread betting with those companies whose
details appeared in his bank accounts. He said, ‘I thought that Mr Vadera and Mrs Vadera

33. 33
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
had done wrong against me’ and he denied that he had done anything wrong at all and that
everything had taken place with Mr Vadera’s agreement.
He said, ‘I signed the settlement deed due to duress, threat and pressure, but I did not say to
Mr Doshi, “Forgive me” and I did not confess to being responsible for misappropriating
those funds’.
Two character witnesses gave evidence to you on his behalf, Rahul Chimbalkar who had
known Mr Vadera [sic] for five years, he was a man of substance and was a business analyst
and spoke of Mr Jain in complementary terms, he said they had met through their children at
nursery school and they had become friends and they met socially and he said, ‘Mr Jain was
very family-orientated, very friendly, very religious and I had no reason to doubt his honesty
and I was shocked and surprised to hear he had been arrested’; and Sandeep Nharta, a
similar man of substance who told you he was an IT consultant and had known Mr Jain for
five years and that they had met through the children and that, ‘Our wives had met first and I
got to know Mr Jain and he was very reliable and I became a close friend of his and I have
been so for the last five years and we met regularly. I never had any cause to doubt his
honesty and I was quite shocked when I heard the allegations, and I had no hesitation in
coming to court to give character evidence for Mr Jain’.
Then, finally, there were the additional agreed facts, which you have in writing, dealing with
Mr Jain going to his GP after the meeting when he said he was assaulted, and Mrs Jain
going to hospital and being detained under section two of the Mental Health Act as a result
of her severe depression and eventually being discharged and being placed under the
supervision of a home care team at the end of 2014.
So, finally, members of the jury, and I am about to invite you to retire once the jury bailiffs
have been sworn.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, might I just raise one very small point? 10 September 2010 was the
date that the matter was reported to the police, not the FCA [inaudible] previously.
JUDGE BOURNE: You are absolutely right, thank you very much. So finally, members of the
jury, the prosecution submit to you that Mr Jain has been caught red-handed and that he has
during the course of this trial put up a smokescreen in order, say the prosecution, to try and
pull the wool over your eyes. The defence, on the other hand, submit that everything was
done with the consent and authority of Mr Vadera and that it is he and his wife who have
lied about everything that was really going on and that they have given dishonest false
evidence against the entirely innocent Mr Jain. It is for you to decide whether you are

34. 34
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
satisfied so that you are sure that Mr Jain is guilty of all or any of these offences on the
indictment, if you are sure you must convict, if you are not sure you must acquit. Yes,
please.
Jury bailiffs are sworn in at 12.57pm.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, please take care when you fold your files up and take them with you and
you are under absolutely no pressure of time at all in relation to your deliberations.
Jury retires at 12.58pm.
Jury returns at 3.02pm.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Would the defendant please stand? Would the foreman please
stand? Mr Foreman, please answer my first question either yes or no, have the jury reached
a verdict upon which they are all agreed in relation to each of the three counts on the
indictment?
THE FOREMAN: Yes.
THE CLERK: On count one, do you find the defendant Sunil Kumar Jain guilty or not guilty?
THE FOREMAN: Guilty.
THE CLERK: You find him guilty and that is the verdict of you all?
THE FOREMAN: It is.
THE CLERK: On count two of this indictment, do you find the defendant Sunil Kumar Jain guilty
or not guilty?
THE FOREMAN: Not guilty.
THE CLERK: You find him not guilty and that is the verdict of you all?
THE FOREMAN: Yes.
THE CLERK: On count three of this guilty, do you find the defendant Sunil Kuman Jain guilty or
not guilty?
THE FOREMAN: Not guilty.
THE CLERK: You find him not guilty and that is the verdict of you all?
THE FOREMAN: It is.
THE CLERK: You may sit down.
JUDGE BOURNE: Thank you very much. Yes, now, Mr Robertson, what is the position in
relation to the Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings?
MR ROBERTSON: I have a timetable, I’ve not yet, not yet given these documents to the defence,
but this is a standard provision of information by the defendant document, which in the
normal course of events would be answered within 28 days, so that will be served on

35. 35
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Mr Jain and his lawyers today.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, well, just so that everyone understands, in cases involving sums of money
of the type that the jury and I have been considering in this case, there is inevitably an
application for compensation in relation to the proceeds of crime and what must follow –
MR ROBERTSON: Yes, yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: - from the jury’s verdict in relation to count one.
MR ROBERTSON: There’s also a draft, may I hand that to Your Honour and to the defence, just a
proposed timetable?
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes.
MR ROBERTSON: So, I will hand that to Ms Arden and to Your Honour, which is not set in
stone, of course.
RULING
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, well, Ms Arden has not obviously had an opportunity to consider the
application or indeed the timetable that has been provided to you today and you need to
consider that carefully with those who instruct you.
MS ARDEN: Indeed.
JUDGE BOURNE: Because there is no point in me today directing a timetable, which perhaps may
be –
MS ARDEN: Difficult to keep to.
JUDGE BOURNE: In the circumstances of this particular case –
MS ARDEN: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: - where it is suggested there may be money outside the jurisdiction, all right,
well, we will come to that in a moment.
MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: I am going to give Ms Arden opportunity to consider that before I do make
directions.
MR ROBERTSON: Yes, quite.
JUDGE BOURNE: - pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act.
MR ROBERTSON: Yes.
JUDGE BOURNE: All right, thank you, I am assuming there has been no change at all in relation
to Mr Vadera’s evidence; nothing has been paid back?
MR ROBERTSON: No, that’s correct, no change.
JUDGE BOURNE: All right, thank you. Now, Ms Arden, do you have any applications to make?

36. 36
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
MS ARDEN: Well, the question of course is as to whether Your Honour proceeds to sentence
today?
JUDGE BOURNE: I am not going to sentence him today.
MS ARDEN: You’re not; I don’t know whether Your Honour has decided when or what
Your Honour would wish to hear?
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, I have an open mind, the Court of Appeal encourages Judges not to
sentence in serious cases straightaway, time should be taken for reflection, we will need to
consider carefully the sentencing guidelines that apply to this case because clearly this falls
at the very top end of the range. I have not heard anything from Mr Robertson or indeed
from you about this, but clearly the Court will need to consider that carefully.
MS ARDEN: And, of course, we were discussing very briefly during the luncheon adjournment
that in case of an adverse verdict of course there is a maximum in any event in relation to
theft.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, it is not something we may necessarily be able to deal with straightaway,
but do you have any submissions to make in relation to what appears to be or has been an
addiction to spread betting?
MS ARDEN: I have, and Your Honour will probably appreciate this, I’ve deliberately not gone
down that path. I don’t know whether in the circumstances, it doesn’t, in normal
circumstances with an amount that’s involved in this, one wouldn’t necessarily be asking for
a pre-sentence report –
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, not on the amount.
MS ARDEN: Not on the amount, but in view of that background to it, Your Honour may well hear,
wish to hear from a, in a pre-sentence report as to the, as to what the real nitty gritty of that
particular situation is.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, well, it may be that Mr Jain will want to talk about this now the jury have
returned their verdict whereas before, as you rightly indicate, you and those who instruct
you have not applied your mind to what may have been the true reason for him stealing
substantial sums of money from his employer.
MS ARDEN: No, and one can imagine that, if I can use a slightly different scenario, that if we
were talking about an addiction to drugs or alcohol, Your Honour, one can see, might well
want to know more of the background to that and this, of course, is another potentially
difficult area that Your Honour may wish to consider in due course.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, well, I do not disagree with any of that at all.

37. 37
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
MS ARDEN: Thank you.
JUDGE BOURNE: It is still a very serious offence and one, which will inevitably result in a period
of imprisonment and potentially quite a long custodial sentence.
MS ARDEN: But Your Honour may well feel it’s right and necessary to know, if there is a
background to that, that, as to what in fact the background is.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, well, Ms Arden, I have been assisted by you throughout this trial and so I
would like to find a date for a sentence, which is convenient for you and possibly for you,
Mr Robertson, although different considerations apply, and so I am going to –
MS ARDEN: Well, I’m going to ask Your Honour for Your Honour’s indulgence, that
Your Honour knows he has a wife who is a bit fragile, if I can put it just like that, that is
probably under-stating it, albeit she has made some progress and I was going to ask
Your Honour, and I know it’s not necessarily something that will immediately commend
itself, but if Your Honour would allow bail pending the sentence hearing -?
JUDGE BOURNE: No.
MS ARDEN: - so that if I can just –
JUDGE BOURNE: I am not going to allow bail in this case; Mr Jain is going to receive a custodial
sentence.
MS ARDEN: He is indeed.
JUDGE BOURNE: And this has been something, which must have been obvious to him for a very
long time.
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, it obviously has and the only reason that I would pray in aid or the
argument I would pray in aid is that he has a young child, and Your Honour knows the
background so far as Mrs Jain’s concerned and it would enable him to prepare her letter.
And he’s obviously not going anywhere. Your Honour knows he’s been on bail for, well,
what it is, it’s three years and he doesn’t have his passport so there’s absolutely no chance of
flight whatsoever and I would ask Your Honour to seriously consider bail in the
circumstances.
JUDGE BOURNE: Well, Ms Arden, I have considered the matter very carefully and although I am
not going to sentence him today, as I have indicated, I have made it perfectly plain to you
and to him that a custodial sentence will be imposed of some length and in all the
circumstances I am going to remand him in custody today. The only question remains as to
when it will be convenient for me to sentence him so far as you are concerned, I know the
Probation Service here can turn around a report quite quickly, but looking for a date towards

38. 38
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
the end of June?
MS ARDEN: Can I just get my diary up?
JUDGE BOURNE: Of course.
MS ARDEN: I had it up, but it seems to have disappeared from the screen now; I could do 9 June.
JUDGE BOURNE: The 9th
of?
MS ARDEN: June, is that sufficient time for the, Your Honour says that the turn around for the
report can be quite soon?
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, I am just considering, when I say quite soon we are now going to a long
weekend.
MS ARDEN: That would give some two full weeks.
JUDGE BOURNE: Just give me a moment. Well, members of the jury, as you have heard I am
going to adjourn the sentence in this case. Judges are encouraged not to move to sentence
straightaway, especially in serious cases like this, you all appreciate this is a serious case
and because there is clearly more to this than meets the eye.
Now that you have returned your verdicts there are matters that need to be considered, not
least in relation to how someone of Mr Jain’s standing could have gambled away over
£500,000 on his own admission using his employer’s funds in a relatively short space of
time. So, I am going to adjourn the sentence to a date we are going to agree in a moment,
but you may want to find out what the result is.
It may be reported elsewhere, but what we do here at the Harrow Crown Court is we provide
you with a telephone number so that you can call if you want to, to find out what the
sentence imposed upon him was after the date of sentence. So, in a moment I am going to
release you from this Court, but I am extremely grateful to you for the efforts you have
made in this case, you have all over-stayed your two-week jury service, most jurors only
have to come to Court to serve for two weeks, you have done double that, and I am very
grateful to you for that.
You will, of course, appreciate how important it is that you perform this role, this Court
could not work without your assistance, and I am very grateful to all of you for your
patience and for the attention you have paid to this case. So, I am going to now release you
with the thanks of this Court, normally I say to jurors at this stage, you better see what is
available for you tomorrow, but not in your case because you are now all free to go with the
thanks of this particular Court for all you have done. Thank you very much.
Jury released.

39. 39
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
JUDGE BOURNE: Ms Arden, the Probation Service are very hard pressed at this Court, as we all
know, and they have asked for three weeks, there may be matters that need to be considered
over and above simply interviewing the defendant. So, is there any chance of a date for you
in the following week, or indeed the week after?
MS ARDEN: 29 June, just bear with me one second, Thursday 29 June?
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, what I am going to say is that I will list the case in the afternoon, which
will make it, I hope, convenient for you if you have to come from somewhere else. So, what
I am going to do now I am simply going to direct that the timetable on the document that
has been provided to the Court today for the Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings be as
follows: the defendant’s section 18 response to be served within four weeks, by 23 June;
any response by, forgive me, the statement from the Crown under section 16 to be served
five weeks thereafter, by 28 July, and any reply from the defence to be served four weeks
thereafter, on 25 August, and we will need to find a date for a mention towards the end of
September. I say mention because the case will have to be listed as a mention to see where
we are and where the parties are in relation to those proceedings. So, I am going to ask the
Court to provide a date; Ms Arden, is this a matter, which you are going to have to return to
deal with, the mention, or will somebody else be able to deal with it?
MS ARDEN: I imagine somebody else will deal with it on my behalf.
JUDGE BOURNE: All right, well, shall we just choose a date at random, I do not mean at random,
but?
MS ARDEN: Right, okay, can I say if those instructing me, after considering the matter, deem that
they require more time?
JUDGE BOURNE: They can apply to me; I shall be here in any event and –
MS ARDEN: Could that be done administratively?
JUDGE BOURNE: So long as it is not an exceptional delay, yes, but if it is more than two months
the matter will have to be listed.
MS ARDEN: Okay, well, I’m sure if it’s more than two, well, I have no, I’d better not say that, I
don’t know, but I will obviously ask them to, if they require more time, to write to
Your Honour, the Court and to the CPS.
JUDGE BOURNE: Yes, all right, well, I will not say anything more about that now, but I am going
to identify a date for a mention hearing towards the end of September and it will be a short
hearing, so it will not take very long; shall we say Thursday 21 September?
MS ARDEN: Your Honour, yes. Your Honour, may I, if Your Honour will forgive me for doing