Ravi Rach is currently
being represented by big time solicitors Brett Wilson LLP, the firm's area of
specialisation is criminal defence, fraud and financial crime and defamation.
He certainly has chosen the right people to represent him, let's just hope they
did their homework on this guy before taking him on as a client.
Rach is currently the subject of one or more criminal investigations, one involving failure to pay a number of companies who supplied goods and services for his mega wedding at Old Billingsgate in August 2014. The company he had hired to organise his wedding 'Jayantilal ltd' and its directors were forced to go into liquidation. The figures for the wedding being thrown around is £4million and the amount of money which was never paid starts from £500k upwards. We know Rach was declared bankrupt both in the UK and USA:
so we are wondering how he managed to afford a wedding for so much money. Well there is still the enormous amount outstanding so that would make sense. All of the people involved were made to sign a confidentiality agreement, barring them from talking about the wedding... but they talked anyway ;)
Here is a photo of the wedding which is already in the public domain, we think Rach put it up on facebook himself:
https://www.facebook.com/Fraudster-Ravi-Rach-933906380015051/timeline/ nice flowers Ravi, did you pay for them?
There is also talk of both Rach and his wife Nisha Hindocha trying to enter the field of events through their company 'Sakoni's catering'. Although we are unsure how the events industry will react to this news (although we can guess) particularly with their incredibly bad experience with him and his wedding planner. There were so many reports of fraud against Rach that he was arrested by the police and there is currently a court case against him.
Our sources tell us that Rach is apparently is the 'head' of an Indian consortium looking to purchase Northampton FC, although we are unsure if this sale will go through due to allegations of being a fraudster. Rach was last seen at a wedding in Hilton Park Lane where sources identified him along with his wife Nisha Rach (Hindocha).
Here is an image of Rach (we are not associated with this website, but it is Ravi Rach in the photos): http://thewhistleblowers.info/ravi-rach-passport-personal-pictures-of-this-notorious-fraudster-money-launderer/
We wonder... if Rach proclaims his innocence, why are there so many people who have bad things to say about him and why is there so much information about fraudulent activities by Rach available online? So many people have been affected that they all have something to say.
We would like to remind you that if you have been a victim of financial fraud, do not sit in silence. Report it so justice is served, report it to http://www.actionfraud.police.uk - It takes effort to put fraudsters and conmen away and we all need to work together.
Claims by Rach to remove evidence
Rach had also been successful in having Google remove almost every trace of fraudulent activities by filing a legal request which you can see below.
In the first one, Rach was embarrassed about a photo of himself because it is 'not particularly flattering' as put by his own legal team'. Perhaps because Rach has put on so much weight we can only assume he wasn't happy with looking like the cookie monster.
NOTICE TYPE: Dmca
KIND OF WORK: image
DESCRIPTION: Two images that appear at the URL infringe our client’s copyright. Firstly there is a photograph of our client’s passport (which furthermore, itself contains a photograph of our client over which he asserts copyright). This photograph was taken by our client and therefore he holds the copyright to the image. Our client is understandably concerned about the risk of his identity being stolen and the scope for an individual to use the document to commit criminal offences and/or cause him financial loss. The online publication of the image of the passport also amounts to a breach of Crown Copyright contrary to sections 163 and 107 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The second image relates to a ‘selfie’, namely a photograph of our client taken by himself. This second image of our client is not particularly flattering and our client never contemplated it being published to the world on the World Wide Web. Our client is embarrassed and humiliated by the publication of this photograph. The two images also appear when a Google Image search is undertaken for ‘Ravi Rach’.
ORIGINAL URLS: http://www.thewhistleblowers.org/?p=48035 No authorised examples of these works exist on the World Wide Web as our client never intended for these images to be published online. A copy of our client’s passport is provided, lest there be any doubt over the validity of this request or our client’s authority as the rights holder.
ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING URLS:
Information on Rach's
court case
NOTICE TYPE: Other
EXPLANATION OF COMPLAINT:
Name: [redacted]
Company name: BRETT
WILSON (LLP) LAWYERS
If applicable, include
the name of the company or organization whose legal rights you represent (e.g.
if you are legal agent, etc.)
Please explain in
detail why you believe the content on the above URLs is unlawful, citing
specific provisions of law wherever possible. *
We are a law firm
based in London.
This request is made
on behalf of our client [Redacted]
The website that
hosted this URL is no longer live, neither is the URL
listed above which
linked to a webpage that contained further defamatory
statements about our
client. We submitted an outdated content removal
request to Google on
30.07.15 but this was denied as the "content hasn't
been blocked with the
appropriate robots.txt directive or metatags to block
us from indexing or
archiving this page". The Google notice advised
further to select an
alternative removal option from the webpage removal
request tool.
This URL snippet appears on the first page of a Google
Search against our
client's name and for the following reasons we request
that you remove this
outdated and defamatory snippet:
DEFAMATION/LIBEL
The above words are
defamatory and would, on their everyday and natural
meaning, be understood
to mean that our client was guilty of the
imprisonable offence
of theft contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act
1968. Such
a defamatory imputation is likely to cause our client to
suffer serious harm to
his reputation within the meaning of section 1 of
the Defamation Act
2013.
Whilst our client is
presently one of several individuals who are the
subject of a criminal
investigation, he emphatically denies any criminal
wrongdoing. There
has been no finding of fact against him and he remains a
man of good
character. As such, he is entitled to rely on the presumption
of falsity afforded to
claimants in English libel law.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
Our client is
confident that the investigation, and/or any subsequent
proceedings, will
result in him being exonerated of any wrongdoing.
However, there is a
substantial risk that the content at the URLs and
resultant search
results will prejudice the course of justice in any
criminal proceedings
brought against our client and/or others. This is
because there is a
real risk that prospective witnesses and/or jurors may
read the material at
the URLs and/or Google results/snippets and be
influenced by the
content (which pre-judges our client as guilty).
For the above reason,
and because proceedings are ‘active’ - and now Google
is on notice of the
same - the continued publication of the URLs and the
returning of the
results/snippets in Google search results is likely to
constitute a contempt
of court contrary to section 1 of the Contempt of
Court Act 1981.
Such contempts are subject to the strict liability rule
and it is therefore
irrelevant whether Google has any intention to
interfere with the
course of justice. Those found guilty of contempt of
court may be
imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized.
In the event of Google
continuing to return search results referring to the
URLs following receipt
of this letter we intend to bring this matter to the
attention of the Court
and/or investigating authorities.
legal_consent_statement:
agree
signature_date:
08/12/2015
In order to ensure
specificity, please quote the exact text from each URL above that you believe
infringes on your rights. If the allegedly infringing content is a picture or
video, please provide a detailed description of the picture/video in question
so that we may locate it on the URL in question. *
The URL snippet which
appears on page 1 of a
Google Search for our
client [redacted] contains the following defamatory
statements:
"Royal bank of scotland how they robbed me through[redacted]
that ..... But now you
and that Rat of [redacted] and the others with you
met ...".
I swear, under penalty
of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am
authorized to report this alleged violation.
Signature:
Signed on this date of
Signature [redacted]
URLS OF ORIGINAL WORK:
PROBLEMATIC URLS:
NOTICE TYPE: Dmca
KIND OF WORK: image
DESCRIPTION: The image of our client’s passport that appears at the URL infringes our client’s copyright. The photograph of our client’s passport (which furthermore, itself contains a photograph of our client over which he asserts copyright) was taken by our client and therefore he holds the copyright to the image. Our client is understandably concerned about the risk of his identity being stolen and the scope for an individual to use the document to commit criminal offences and/or cause him financial loss. The online publication of the image of the passport also amounts to a breach of Crown Copyright contrary to sections 163 and 107 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
ORIGINAL URLS: https://ravirach.wordpress.com/ No authorised examples of these works exist on the World Wide Web as our client never intended for these images to be published online. A copy of our client’s passport is provided, lest there be any doubt over the validity of this request or our client’s authority as the rights holder.
ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING URLS:
1. https://ravirach.wordpress.com/%20No%20authorised%20examples%20of%20these%20works%20exist%20on%20the%20World%20Wide%20Web%20as%20our%20client%20never%20intended%20for%20these%20images%20to%20be%20published%20online.%20%20Our%20client%20asserts%20that%20this%20is%20a%20genuine%20photograph%20of%20his%20passport,%20lest%20there%20be%20any%20doubt%20over%20the%20validity%20of%20this%20request%20or%20our%20client%E2%80%99s%20authority%20as%20the%20rights%20holder.
This one is by Mitul
Rach
NOTICE TYPE: Other
KIND OF WORK: unknown
COMPLAINT legalother_quote_commonwealth: In 2013 we uncovered a new type of fraud made by a Mr Ravi Rach of the so called 'Freshwater Group of Companies' or 'FWGC'. Rach's associate in this fraud is Mr Allan Oakley and also Rach's own family members including his brother Mr Mitul Rach.
URLS OF ORIGINAL WORK:
PROBLEMATIC URLS:
http://ravirachfraudster.wordpress.com/about/
Another one by Mitul Rach, Ravi's brother. He tried to have this one removed by stating he has no links with them although he has been director of Companies that Ravi has been a director of... No links eh? Also Mitul if you had half a brain you would realise you share the same surname and have the same facebook friends. There are witnesses who will swear that you have been involved in discussions or business with your brother Ravi.
 |
| Mitul Rach and Ravi Rach - Freshwater Group |
NOTICE TYPE: Other
KIND OF WORK: unknown
COMPLAINT legalother_quote_commonwealth: i believe this weblink is defamatory as i Have no links with Ravi rach or allan oakley, As i have never one any business or have an contacts with them.
URLS OF ORIGINAL WORK:
PROBLEMATIC URLS:
http://mdemeolaw.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/ravi-rach-fraudster-thief/
NOTICE TYPE: Other
KIND OF WORK: movie
DESCRIPTION: this
deformation of character and slanderous nature of the content. We never done
any business and they have put this on the net . If this is not removed we will
inform our lawyers and file a law suit on GOOGLE FOR SLANDER
its 'defamation' and 'libel' you idiot
its 'defamation' and 'libel' you idiot
URLS OF ORIGINAL WORK:
2. http://forum.agriscape.com/urea/thread/1930095/1
3. http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach
4. http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+and+white
5. http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+and+white+and+fraud
6. http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+arrested+in+los+angeles
7. http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+dan+white+traders+to+avoid
8. http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+dont+do+business
9. http://insidetradellc.com/?s=Ravi+Rach+Don+t+Do+Business
10.http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+fraud
11.http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+insidetrade+llc
12.http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+is+not+a+good+person
13.http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+private+placement
14.http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+scam
15.http://insidetradellc.com/?s=ravi+rach+wingate+investments+com
16.http://networkscrapmetal.com/broker/breech.php
17.http://tahrirblacklist.blogspot.com/2011_12_01_archive.html
18.http://tahrirblacklist.blogspot.co.uk/2011_12_01_archive.html
19.http://www.networkscrapmetal.com/broker/displaybreech.php?Contract=1345668421
20.http://www.networkscrapmetal.com/broker/displaybreech.php?Contract=1346119250
21.http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/T5I2E0R2O3ROMK5A7
22.http://www.yasni.ca/2013-01-26/new+names/20
