Kenyan billionaire Vimal Shah says he lost Ksh102.4 million in a failed foreign exchange transaction after seeking US dollars to pay for imported raw materials.
But his testimony in court raises more questions than answers. The money did not simply disappear. It moved between companies; part of the promised dollars was delivered, another portion became the subject of arbitration, and the person at the centre of the criminal case was not the direct recipient.
The emerging picture is therefore more complicated than the claim that Shah lost Ksh102.4 million in a forex deal.
The Money Trail Tells A More Complicated Story ¶
Court testimony and bank records show that Ksh102,437,500 was transferred from Shah’s company to Bee N Bee Kenya Limited after an agreement was reached to facilitate access to foreign currency in 2023.
The money was not sent directly to the individual accused in the criminal case.
Instead, the recipient company received the full amount before transferring Ksh96.4 million to Pershing VC Group Limited.
That movement of money is one of the most important issues in the case.
If Shah’s company was looking for dollars to pay for imported raw materials, why was more than Ksh100 million transferred to one company and then most of it moved to another company?
The answer matters because the transaction involved a substantial amount of corporate money.
Shah Did Not Actually Lose The Entire Ksh102.4 Million ¶
The description of the transaction as a Ksh102.4 million loss also requires greater precision.
Under the agreement, the Ksh102,437,500 was supposed to facilitate the purchase and delivery of USD745,000 to Shah’s company.
But according to the court record, USD300,000 was eventually remitted.
That left USD445,000 outstanding.
The difference subsequently became the subject of arbitration between Shah’s company and Bee N Bee Kenya Limited.
The arbitrator awarded Shah’s company the outstanding USD445,000, together with interest and costs.
This is a striking distinction.
The evidence does not show that the entire Ksh102.4 million vanished without trace. It shows that the money entered a corporate transaction, part of the contracted foreign currency was delivered, and the remaining obligation became a commercial dispute.
Calling the entire amount a forex loss therefore oversimplifies what actually happened.
Why Did The Money Move To Pershing? ¶
The movement of Ksh96.4 million from Bee N Bee to Pershing VC Group deserves particular scrutiny.
The transfer represented about 94 percent of the original Ksh102.4 million.
Pershing was linked to the foreign exchange arrangement and was expected to facilitate the conversion of the funds into dollars.
But this raises a basic due-diligence question.
What exactly did Shah’s company know about Pershing before transferring such a large amount of money into an arrangement involving the company?
The issue becomes more significant because investigators received information from the Capital Markets Authority indicating that Bee N Bee and Pershing were not licensed under the Capital Markets Act to conduct the relevant business.
That does not by itself prove that Shah was negligent or that the transaction was fraudulent.
But it raises legitimate questions about how the transaction was structured and what checks were performed before the money was transferred.
Shah Says the Accused Never Received His Money ¶
Another important part of Shah’s testimony undermines any simple narrative about who personally benefited from the transaction.
Shah confirmed that no money was transferred directly to the individual accused in the case.
He also acknowledged that the individual was neither a director nor shareholder of the company that received the bulk of the funds.
Most importantly, Shah said he could not confirm whether the accused personally benefited because the available documents did not establish that connection.
That is significant because the criminal case centres on allegations of conspiracy to defraud.
Shah further acknowledged that he had not seen a document showing communication between the accused persons about a plan to defraud him.
The absence of such a document does not automatically prove innocence.
But it demonstrates why the criminal allegations must be tested carefully at trial rather than treated as established fact.
The Arbitration Was Against a Company, Not the Accused ¶
There is another distinction that deserves public attention.
The arbitration arising from the transaction involved Shah’s company and Bee N Bee Kenya Limited.
The accused individual was not personally a party to that commercial dispute.
The arbitrator ultimately determined that money remained outstanding and awarded Shah’s company USD445,000 plus interest and costs.
This creates two separate questions.
The first is whether Bee N Bee breached its contractual obligations by failing to deliver the remaining dollars.
The second is whether the accused individual participated in a criminal conspiracy to defraud Shah.
A company’s failure to complete a financial transaction does not automatically establish that every person associated with the arrangement committed fraud.
The prosecution must prove that connection.
Bidco’s Own Governance Raises Questions ¶
Shah also acknowledged that his company had not produced a formal board resolution authorising the institution of the criminal proceedings, although the board was aware of the matter.
That raises a separate corporate governance question.
A transaction involving Ksh102.4 million should have a clear paper trail showing who approved it, what due diligence was undertaken, and who authorized the transfer.
The public deserves to know whether those procedures were followed before such a large amount of corporate money entered the arrangement.
Shah’s Account Leaves Important Questions Unanswered ¶
There is no question that Shah’s company suffered a substantial financial setback from the transaction. The arbitration confirms that USD445,000 remained outstanding and that the company obtained an award for the amount plus interest and costs.
But the facts do not support a simplistic narrative that Ksh102.4 million simply disappeared through forex fraud.
The money moved from Shah’s company to Bee N Bee and then largely to Pershing. USD300,000 was eventually delivered, while USD445,000 remained outstanding. The commercial dispute was pursued through arbitration, while the criminal case separately seeks to establish whether individuals conspired to defraud Shah.
The unresolved questions are therefore bigger than the alleged loss.
Who approved the transaction? What due diligence was conducted? Why did the money move through two companies? What happened to the Ksh96.4 million transferred to Pershing? Why was an individual who did not directly receive the money accused of conspiracy? And what evidence connects him personally to the alleged fraud?
Until those questions are fully answered, the Ksh102.4 million story remains far more complicated than the headline suggests.
