But on June 3, 2026, SEBI dropped a 109-page interim order that shattered this image. The regulator alleged that approximately ₹15.15 lakh crore (about $158 billion) of revenue reported between FY21 and FY25 was misrepresented—roughly 99.8% of the company's total consolidated revenue during the period.
The core mechanism wasn't hidden in complex derivatives but allegedly lay in a stark mismatch between group-level reporting and the actual operations of its Swiss subsidiary, Valcambi SA.
SEBI noted that Valcambi's independently reported revenues accounted for less than 0.5% of the consolidated revenues reported by Rajesh Exports and its Swiss holding entity, Global Gold Refineries AG (GGR). If Valcambi was the engine doing the work, why did the holding company report nearly ₹3 lakh crore while the refinery itself reported only ₹543 crore? That gap, SEBI described as "egregious and unheard of".
When the investigation began, Rajesh Exports didn't hold back on data—it claimed to have submitted between 300-400 GB of documents, running into lakhs of pages. Yet, this data deluge may have been part of the problem.
The company contends that SEBI mistakenly treated EBITDA (gross profit) as revenue, leading to the massive discrepancy. Mehta explained using a jewellery transaction analogy: if a customer buys gold worth ₹30,000, that's the revenue, but the gross profit might only be ₹1,000. He alleges SEBI took that ₹1,000 EBITDA and called it the revenue. Whether this was a genuine misunderstanding or a deliberate obfuscation tactic is the central question. The sheer volume of unorganized documentation potentially slowed forensic analysis, creating a scenario where critical verification was delayed by the inability to efficiently locate and cross-reference specific files within terabytes of data.
The scale of the alleged misrepresentation points to profound failures in internal controls and audit oversight. SEBI's order flags that forensic auditors faced difficulties obtaining complete access to books, ERP systems, and transaction-level data for overseas entities. The company did not publicly disclose the financials of the very subsidiaries generating 97-99% of its revenue.
Specific red flags abounded. The company recorded sales and purchases exceeding ₹11,487 crore with an entity called Affluence Shares and Stocks Pvt Ltd, yet Affluence claimed Rajesh Exports was never its client. SEBI also questioned a reported investment of approximately ₹1,035 crore in African gold mining assets, for which the company failed to provide entity-wise breakups, valuation reports, or supporting documentation. Perhaps most damningly, SEBI alleged that company funds worth ₹339 crore were routed to promoter Rajesh Mehta's personal accounts for various purposes, including derivative trades, without board or audit committee approval. The case has been referred to the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) regarding potential failures in statutory audit oversight.
Perhaps the most uncomfortable question raised by this saga is: where were the other watchdogs? The Congress party sharply criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), and Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) for failing to act despite the scale of the alleged irregularities. "Why did the ED that works 24x7 against Opposition not raise any red flag?" asked Congress leader Pawan Khera.
The investigation timeline itself reveals delays. SEBI received representations questioning unusually large trade receivables in March 2024, appointed an investigating authority in October 2024, but passed the interim order only in June 2026—a nearly 20-month gap. This suggests a fragmented regulatory architecture where agencies operate in silos without effective inter-agency information sharing or coordinated action. The complexity of cross-border structures involving Swiss subsidiaries may have created jurisdictional blind spots that no single agency felt empowered to tackle comprehensively.
The fallout is already derailing Rajesh Exports' ambitious pivot beyond gold.
This was meant to be a strategic hedge against gold market cyclicality, with a planned investment of around ₹5,000 crore.
However, the Ministry of Heavy Industries is now considering removing Rajesh Exports from the PLI scheme following the SEBI order. The company had already faced penalties for missing production timelines and had invested only ₹262 crore by the end of 2025, compared to the ₹1,200 crore Ola Electric spent for a smaller 1.4 GWh capacity. Losing the PLI status doesn't just mean forfeiting subsidies; it effectively strands the capital invested and forces a complete strategic rethink, abandoning a key growth narrative that was central to its long-term valuation thesis.
The immediate operational burden is staggering. The company has committed to resubmitting all requested documents within 15 days to resolve the "confusion" over the 400 GB submission. Processing, organizing, and verifying this volume of data within such a tight window requires diverting significant legal, finance, and IT resources from core business operations. Estimates suggest direct costs could range between ₹1-5 crore, encompassing personnel, technology infrastructure, and external professional services, not to mention the opportunity cost of management attention diverted to crisis management rather than business growth.
More damaging is the impact on market access. The stock has hit the 5% lower circuit for consecutive sessions, falling to around ₹98.73, and has eroded approximately 84% of shareholder value over the past three years. Promoter Rajesh Mehta has been barred from the securities market.
Banking relationships are also at risk, with Canara Bank reportedly classifying its exposure as a stressed asset and initiating steps to auction dues estimated at around ₹509 crore.
The personal stakes for management and the board are high. While the interim order currently doesn't impose direct personal liabilities, history shows that SEBI can pursue severe penalties if findings are upheld. In the Satyam case, SEBI imposed disgorgement of over $306 million plus interest. Independent directors, in particular, face "diligence-prong" liability under Section 149(12) of the Companies Act for failure to exercise due diligence in reviewing financial statements. Recent SEBI orders have penalized independent directors in the ₹1-2 lakh range per person for similar failures.
The controversy has also become a political flashpoint. The Congress party has attacked the government, calling the findings a "damning indictment" of regulatory architecture and evidence of a "crony capitalist model". Questions are being raised about why multiple agencies failed to act and whether LIC's substantial stake acquisition was influenced by political considerations. This political scrutiny ensures the case will remain in the spotlight, prolonging the period of uncertainty and potentially triggering broader regulatory reforms.
Rajesh Exports maintains that the interim order contains no conclusive adverse findings and that the revenues declared are correct, attributing the issue to a fundamental misunderstanding by SEBI. The company is in the process of submitting clarifications and "solid evidence" to resolve the matter. Others
However, the path to redemption will be long. The company must successfully navigate the 15-day document submission deadline, cooperate fully with the fresh forensic audit, and hope for a favorable resolution from SEBI. Even then, restoring investor confidence, repairing banking relationships, and reviving the stalled battery diversification strategy will take years. The Rajesh Exports saga serves as a stark reminder that in financial markets, size is not enough—the trail behind the numbers matters far more.
