Case No. ZC14D01201

55.I heard oral evidence from Meera, Ashish, Ahuti and Jagdish. As already mentioned, Sarla did not attend court and did not give evidence. 56.I did not find the evidence of Meera particularly helpful. She told me she understood Ashish to be very wealthy but she accepted that they had never owned their own property. She said Ashish had led her to believe he was the beneficial owner of the Mara Group. He ran the business without input from anybody else. She did get herself into a mess as to her knowledge of a family trust during the marriage. She said she accompanied Ashish to Switzerland in 2012 for a meeting about a family trust but was unable to explain why her Form E said that she may be one of the beneficiaries when her case was that she had never been told that by anyone. Having said that, I am not sure this takes me any further in relation to determining who is the beneficial owner of Mara. She did say that, whenever she was with her brother, Prashant and Ashish, there were lots of discussions about Mara but there were none when Ahuti was present with her and Ashish. I accept that evidence.57.Ashish is clearly a very charismatic and engaging character. He exudes charm and enthusiasm. He clearly knows Mara’s business backwards. I am quite clear that he decides Mara’s direction of travel. He will take the decision to buy a business or diversify into another area. He is the entrepreneur and the money maker. I accept that this also means that he could lose money but that is an occupational hazard for such businesses. Without the risk of losing money, the businesses would never make money in the first place. He was asked why Ahuti did not put her business into Inspire Panama. He knew very well what Mr Pointer QC, for Meera was asking him but initially he did not answer referring to the property crash in Dubai not happening until after February 2008. He then said that Inspire Panama was “more set up for future projects than existing ones”. He was asked about putting two companies in Ahuti’s company Midas whilst her husband was still alive. All he could say was that it was a temporary measure and they did feel it was risky. They did not get advice as to whether Ahuti’s husband’s creditors could enforce against Midas, which is very surprising if this was a genuine concern. I asked why Mara’s interest in the two companies could not have been put in his name, as he had originally had shares in Mara Investment Partners Ltd. He did eventually concede that that could have been easier. 58.In answer to a question from Mr Pointer, he was constrained to accept that, if all three first beneficiaries had died, Ahuti would not have been able to claim her share if Meera was still alive. He was asked about the placement letter saying he was a beneficial owner of Mara, which he had blamed on Prashant in his replies to questionnaire. He said this was not misplaced as Prashant had been asked. He said it was a “clear oversight”. He was asked about the 11% of the shares in Mara Online that were in his name but held beneficially for his cousin. He told me about various conflicts of interest. He was asked about the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Directors of MARA Africa Opportunities SPC Limited held on 25th June 2012 which refer to “each of Prashant Manek and Ashish Thakkar also declared their interest in MARA, Mara Group Holdings Ltd, MARA ICT and MIG…”. Again, he said it was a clear oversight. At one point, he tried to suggest it could not be accurate as it referred to Prashant’s interest in Mara Group Holdings Ltd but it is clear that the passage refers to their respective interests in the different companies and the reference to Mara Group Holdings Limited can only be to Ashish. He then said it was his mistake. He was then taken to the Minutes of the same Board on 4th October 2012 which used identical wording as to this aspect. His response was that this was simply a cut and paste exercise from the previous Minutes although Mr Pointer drew his attention to differences in the wording of the rest of the paragraph. 59.Mr Pointer then asked him about a proposal to acquire the assets of Mara Africa Special Opportunities Segregated Portfolio (“MASO”) in November 2014 by another UAE company in which he and Prashant were to retain a 7.5% interest in B shares worth up to $25 million. A document dated 17th November 2014 from Mara Holdings Africa Limited, signed by Ahuti, indicated that Ashish was to have 66% of these shares with Prashant having the balance. Mr Pointer asked why this was the case if Ahuti owned Ashish’s interest. He responded that he was representing the Mara Group and it was not true that Mara Group Holdings Ltd is his vehicle. 60.I then heard the evidence of Ahuti. Whilst she gave her evidence in a dignified and calm manner, she certainly did not come over as a leading player in Mara in the way that her brother had. She told me she knew she had an interest in RBH but they did not discuss percentages. She said things were very fluid. She later said she knew there were three parts and Ashish was holding her part. She accepted that, for a time in 2012, she held shares in two companies for Ashish via her structure Midas, even though her husband was still alive. She said that Midas was a new company and she did it as it was advantageous to the family. She was asked about what else Midas held. She told me it had a couple of real estate investments in the United Kingdom but, when it was put to her that these were vulnerable to her husband’s creditors, she told me she was not sure when the investments took place although she later said she thought they were in 2012 to 2013 but she did not remember the dates. I find this evidence surprising as she must have known whether they were before or after the death of her husband. 61.She said that the Midas arrangements worked well but also accepted that there would be no “Know Your Client” issues if the shares had simply been placed in Ashish’s name. She then said that the shares in Mara BVI were split between the two households but were not held for Ashish. The family discussed the structure after her husband’s burial ritual at the end of August/beginning of September. She postulated that the family may have been more generous to her “knowing her situation”, which I assume referred to her husband’s death and her responsibility for her daughter. 62.Finally, I heard from Jagdish. He was, on any view, a very unsatisfactory witness. He answered numerous questions on the basis that he could not recall or he did not know. It is extremely odd that he was not able to answer so many questions if he genuinely is the patriarch of this family and the active Chairman of Mara, as has been presented to me. I initially had difficulty in deciding whether he was deliberately refusing to answer, was so nervous that he could not answer (as suggested by Mr Scott QC for Ahuti and Sarla), genuinely unable to remember or very uncomfortable at having to lie. I do not find that he was so nervous that he was unable to answer as he did answer some questions. It follows that, either he was lying to me or he is certainly not a fully participating Chairman of Mara as suggested by the Respondents. I will return to whether or not he was lying later in this judgment. 63.He was asked why he lost his 1/3rd interest in the transfer of Mara Group Holdings Ltd from Panama to the BVI. He responded that he did not lose his 1/3rd interest as his wife, Sarla, lives with him and Ashish. He said the interest is divided between the two families. He said “we work as a family” and it did not matter to them if the shares were in Sarla’s name or his name. When asked about Ahuti’s interest, he said he had to look after his granddaughter. He repeated that Ashish has no interest. Neither does Rona. Initially, he could not recall Ashish’s position in the Mara Group. He did not recall if he was a director. He said he did not interfere in his, Ashish’s business. He then told me on numerous occasions that he could not recall pretty fundamental business details, including the ownership of Mara Global Technology. He was taken to a print out of his loan account with Mara Group showing large sums of money being received from and going to RAPS Middle East LLC and Mara Global Technology LLC. He was quite unable to provide any details about either company. Mr Pointer suggested that RAPS Middle East LLC must be a Dubai company and therefore have a sponsor. He accepted that would be the case but then could not name the sponsor. Earlier, he had been asked whether Ashish had any position in Mara. He told me he did not know. When pressed, he said he could not recall if Ashish was a director. He was asked about Ashish’s income and he said he did not ask him and he did not “interfere in his business”. 64.Sarla did not give evidence. She never filed a statement. She filed a “patient letter” from a doctor in Dubai dated 29th January 2017 saying that she was suffering from generalised anxiety with depression. Her blood pressure had been well controlled but was now fluctuating and needed readjustment of her medication. She was advised to avoid stress triggers. The letter adds that she was due to travel to London for this hearing. It ends by saying that, in view of her condition, she is advised to avoid stressful situations which would worsen her condition. I was told by Mr Scott that she had not, in fact, travelled to London but, even if she had, it was clear she was not intending to give evidence. Mr Pointer invites me to draw inferences against her for this failure. I will return to this when I make my findings of fact.