In early 2020, the sudden collapse of NMC Health, a major UAE-based healthcare conglomerate, sent shockwaves through the Middle East’s business world. Founded by Indian-origin billionaire B.R. Shetty (also known as Dr. Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty), the company — once valued at billions and operating hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies across the region — was revealed to have hidden debts exceeding $6 billion. Allegations of financial misconduct, including inflated balance sheets, fictitious transactions, and fund misappropriation, quickly surfaced, marking one of the largest corporate scandals in the Gulf.
Amid the fallout, a viral social media post highlighted a surprising angle: the Bank of Baroda’s New York branch was accused of playing a central role in “operationalising” the massive fraud. The claim originated from a $8 billion lawsuit filed by Shetty himself in a New York court in July 2021. In the suit, Shetty — positioning himself as a victim rather than a perpetrator — alleged that the bank’s New York branch served as the “lynchpin” of a fraudulent scheme. He claimed it facilitated US dollar-denominated transfers that helped conceal or move illicit funds, while turning a blind eye to suspicious activities and failing to enforce anti-money laundering rules. The lawsuit also targeted auditor Ernst & Young (EY) and other parties, accusing them of enabling the fraud through negligence or complicity.
Shetty denied any personal involvement in wrongdoing, insisting that former executives (notably the Manghat brothers) had orchestrated a “complex fraud” against him and the company. He sought massive damages, arguing the bank’s actions had devastated his finances and those of his affiliated firm, Neopharma.
However, the New York court dismissed the lawsuit in July 2024. The ruling cited issues such as forum non-conveniens (the case belonging in another jurisdiction), lack of jurisdiction, and other procedural grounds. The dismissal favored Bank of Baroda and the other defendants, effectively rejecting Shetty’s claims against the Indian lender in that venue. Shetty indicated intentions to pursue related matters elsewhere, such as in Abu Dhabi courts.
The broader NMC saga has unfolded primarily in UAE jurisdictions, where the narrative has shifted significantly against Shetty. Multiple courts have ruled in favor of creditors and NMC’s administrators:
- In 2024 and 2025, DIFC (Dubai International Financial Centre) courts ordered Shetty to pay substantial sums to Indian banks like State Bank of India (around $46 million in one case) and others, based on personal guarantees for loans to NMC entities. Judges described his testimony in harsh terms, including as an “incredible parade of lies” and inconsistent denials.
- Attempts by Shetty to appeal or amend defenses have been rejected, with courts finding no prospect of success.
- In a notable development in November 2025, an Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) court ruled that NMC’s administrators could access Bank of Baroda’s internal suspicious transaction reports (STRs) and anti-money laundering records. This followed updates to UAE laws in 2025, allowing such disclosures in civil fraud cases under court order — a ruling that could expose more details about the transactions at the center of the allegations.
NMC’s administrators and lenders have pursued Shetty (and others) for orchestrating or being central to the fraud, seeking recovery of billions in losses. Shetty has continued to maintain his innocence, framing himself as the victim of insider misconduct.
Despite the enormous scale — involving billions in debt, a prominent Indian bank, and a once-celebrated tycoon — the story has received surprisingly little sustained attention in India. Compared to high-profile cases like those of Vijay Mallya or Nirav Modi, which featured dramatic flights from justice and intense media coverage, the NMC scandal has played out largely in international courts with complex financial and jurisdictional layers. Social media clips often highlight perceived double standards — how ordinary borrowers face harassment for missed installments while major players seemingly navigate endless legal battles — yet the full context remains under-discussed.
As of early 2026, proceedings continue in the UAE and elsewhere, with ongoing efforts to recover funds and uncover the full extent of the misconduct. The case underscores the challenges of cross-border fraud detection, banking oversight, and accountability in global finance — and why a scandal of this magnitude has flown under the radar for so many.
About The Author
