Sarad Pawar was a director in a shell company, which have done transaction of 7 Lakh crore in cash in UK.
Company Name was SGFX FINANCIALS CO UK LIMITED. (What could be full Name of SG? Any Guess?)
Thread

According to the UK company filing database, Mr Pawar was appointed as board member of SGFX Financials Co on 13 December 2010 and left the company on 5 January 2011. The filing also notes Mr Pawar's occupation as Minister, Government of India.
This company was incorporated on 13 December 2010 and dissolved on 27 November 2012. Nature of business was ‘Other business activities’!
There were two more directors when company was incorporated
1 is Mr Sarvesh Narendra Gade and 2nd is Mrs Shahanaz Ashraf Bharde
But when this details came out in 2015, Sarad Pawar has filed a case against this couple for using his name without his knowledge! Like really?
Please see below document, which have clearly mentioned that it was authenticated!
Please note he has given consented to act. It means he has filled written form to become director!
After his resign from this company a strange person from Israel joined and resigned multiple times.
His name was Jitu Jeremiah.
Coming back to SGFX Financials Co directors, Mr Gade, was director of three companies registered in the UK. He was appointed director SGFX Financials Co twice.
He was also director of Angel Investments Co UK Ltd and Online Currency Exchange of UK Ltd., as per the information. What is interesting is that all these three companies, in which Mr Gade was a director between June 2010 and May 2013, are now dissolved.
Another interesting factor in this entire episode is that all the companies registered and dissolved in the UK have their namesake companies registered in India with the same directors!
Now few questions are that,where is that couple? What is the progress in case which was registered by Pawar against this couple? What happened to that 7 Lakh Crore?
By the way Pawar was agriculture minister at that period of time!
Also He was president of ICC from 2010 to 2012!
There were reports of IPL fixing during this time. In that time Lalit Modi was involved. But ICC rejected it!
Now you know why!
CC : @KiritSomaiya @SunainaHoley
By the way turnover of reliance is 6.5 Lakh crore I think.
This is just to let you know how much big this scam was!
Some people are asking for reference regarding 7 lakh Crore. Here it is

More from Vijay Patel

More from Business

Following @BAUDEGS I have experienced hateful and propagandist tweets time after time. I have been shocked that an academic community would be so reckless with their publications. So I did some research.
The question is:
Is this an official account for Bahcesehir Uni (Bau)?


Bahcesehir Uni, BAU has an official website
https://t.co/ztzX6uj34V which links to their social media, leading to their Twitter account @Bahcesehir

BAU’s official Twitter account


BAU has many departments, which all have separate accounts. Nowhere among them did I find @BAUDEGS
@BAUOrganization @ApplyBAU @adayBAU @BAUAlumniCenter @bahcesehirfbe @baufens @CyprusBau @bauiisbf @bauglobal @bahcesehirebe @BAUintBatumi @BAUiletisim @BAUSaglik @bauebf @TIPBAU

Nowhere among them was @BAUDEGS to find

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?