Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty’s husband Raj Kundra’s difficulties are not being named. The Economic Offenses Branch on Tuesday summoned Raj Kundra, husband of businessman and actress Shilpa Shetty in an investment fraud of Rs 60.48 crore. According to the information, Kundra has been asked to appear for questioning in this case on 15 September. On 5 September, the Mumbai Police issued a lookout circular (LoC) against Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra, as the couple often travels international. The lookout circular is a system that is used to prevent a person from leaving the country or keep an eye on his activities, usually by issuing an alert to immigration and limit control posts.
Also read this: Bigg Boss 19 | Salman Khan’s answer to Shehnaaz Gill’s request, said- ‘Career does not make the top!’
60 crore fraud crisis on Raj Kundra
Eow has issued summons against Raj Kundra. Therefore, businessmen cannot leave the country. A senior EOW official has confirmed that the Auditor of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has also been called for questioning.
Also read this: Manoj Bajpayee’s big disclosure: ‘If there is no age of love, if you get a good script, why not romance’
Both Shetty and Kundra were summoned three times during the initial investigation. Both said that they live in London, so they sent their lawyer. On this, EOW said that the lawyer did not give complete information. After this, FIR was formally registered.
Shilpa-Raj Kundra accused of 60 crore fraud
Let us tell you that an FIR has been registered against Kundra at Juhu police station in Mumbai. Director of Lotus Capital Financial Services says that they invested Rs 60.48 crore in Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra’s company Best Deal TV Private Limited between 2015 and 2023. He has alleged that Shilpa and Raj spent the money themselves instead of investing in the company.
Shilpa’s lawyer’s argument
Jain Shroff, a lawyer of complainant Deepak Kothari, said his client had invested money with evidence. At the same time, Shilpa Shetty’s lawyer Prashant Patil has dismissed the allegations. He says that the complainant himself was a partner in the company. His son was made the director. If the company had a profit, it would have been distributed between the two.