Prateek Gupta Rejects Claims of Duplicate Cargo Documents as High-Profile Fraud Trial Nears Final Stage

Accusations over alleged duplicate bills of lading and misrepresented metal cargoes dominate the final days of testimony, as both sides prepare for closing arguments in one of the commodity sector’s most closely watched legal battles.

Testimony has concluded in the ongoing case involving businessman Prateek Gupta, who has been accused by global commodity firm Trafigura of playing a central role in a large-scale metals fraud that allegedly resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, marking one of the most contentious disputes within the international trading industry in recent years.

Gupta firmly denied any involvement in creating or approving duplicate documents linked to cargo shipments, telling the court that he did not know who within his companies might have generated paperwork that appeared to show the same cargo being sold to more than one buyer.

The proceedings wrapped up after several days of detailed questioning, with the case now set to resume on December 10, when both sides will deliver closing arguments that are expected to shape the final interpretation of the complex events surrounding the disputed trade flows.

Trafigura’s claims center on an allegation that Gupta and his affiliated companies agreed to supply high-grade nickel but instead delivered lower-value materials such as scrap or steel, a discrepancy the company argues points to deliberate deception rather than a logistical or administrative error.

During Thursday’s session, lawyers representing Trafigura argued that funds connected to the disputed shipments were used by Gupta’s businesses to sustain their operations at a time when financial pressures were mounting across his corporate interests in early 2021.

Gupta countered those accusations by stating that he believes employees within Trafigura were responsible for designing the structure that now stands at the center of the fraud allegations, a suggestion the commodity group has repeatedly rejected while maintaining that it was the victim of a premeditated scheme.

In court, Trafigura’s counsel presented copies of two shipping documents dated 2022 that bore the same reference number, asserting that one of them represented a duplicate issued and sold to Trafigura and included a stamp from TMT Metals AG, one of the firms within Gupta’s broader network.

The legal team suggested that the creation of such documents was potentially driven by financial distress, arguing that the alleged scheme generated significant revenue for Gupta’s companies at a time when they were facing severe operational challenges.

When pressed to identify who within TMT might have signed or stamped the contested paperwork, Gupta stated that he was unaware of any duplicated documentation and reiterated that he could not determine who might have been responsible for the documents being issued.

The trial has drawn attention not only due to its financial scale but also because it highlights the challenges of verification and trust within the metals trading sector, where complex supply chains and international transactions often involve multiple intermediaries, documentation layers and logistical handovers.

Gupta’s business history has also resurfaced during the trial, including previously stated ambitions to expand the UD Group into additional markets across Europe, Russia and Africa, with large increases in staff and operational capacity envisioned during earlier stages of his career.

As the case nears its final phase, industry observers note that the outcome could have wider implications for commodity trading practices, particularly in areas related to document authentication, risk management, and the protocols companies use to verify materials throughout the supply chain.

The upcoming closing arguments are expected to summarize months of claims, counterclaims and document reviews, bringing the court one step closer to evaluating the evidence and determining responsibility in a dispute that has captured significant international interest.

With testimony now completed, legal teams for both parties are preparing to present their concluding interpretations of events, and the court’s eventual decision is anticipated to influence broader discussions about transparency, contractual trust and institutional oversight in the global metals market.