Oliver Chapman, founder of OCI, stated in a sworn declaration, "The alleged diversion of funds came into light after OCI founder Oliver Chapman, in a sworn declaration, said that Raveendran intended to divert most of the $533 million to a Singapore entity owned by him for personal use." Raveendran, for his part, has denied all allegations made in the filing. The divergent claims have intensified the spotlight on the manner in which funds were moved and utilised across jurisdictions.
The court issued its default judgement after determining that Raveendran had consistently ignored court orders and failed to take part in the legal process. This followed a motion for default filed by lenders on 11 August, citing these repeated failures. The court stated, "The court acknowledges that the relief granted herein is extraordinary. But the circumstances of this case are, frankly, unique and unlike anything the undersigned has encountered before, thereby making such relief in this case richly warranted," in its formal ruling.
Under the terms of the ruling, Byju’s is ordered to pay $533 million relating to the 2022 transfer of Alpha’s funds and an additional $540.6 million for the 2023 transfer involving the Camshaft hedge fund interest. Furthermore, Raveendran must provide a "full and accurate accounting" of how the Alpha Funds were used, as stipulated by the court order. The magnitude of these penalties reflects the scale of the transactions under investigation.
Prior to this judgement, Raveendran had been held in civil contempt for failing to comply with orders to share documents central to the case. He was ordered to pay $10,000 per day for every day of non-compliance, a penalty that quickly accumulated. Despite these mounting sanctions, the court remarked, "As of the date of this order, no funds have been paid, despite the accumulation of hundreds of thousands of dollars in sanctions," underscoring Raveendran’s continued non-compliance with judicial directives.
The case against Byju’s Alpha surfaced amidst wider allegations of financial impropriety and has drawn increasing attention within the financial and legal communities. With accusations of round tripping and personal enrichment at stake, the court’s actions have focused sharply on the need for transparency and adherence to established legal processes in cross-border financial dealings.
The situation remains closely watched as stakeholders await further disclosures regarding the use and destination of the disputed funds. The court’s insistence on a detailed accounting aims to address lender concerns and clarify the status of the substantial sums involved in the case.