State prosecutors have decided to move forward with a criminal case against the operators of Sharu Launch Services, a company that has been involved in civil disputes with several state-operated corporations.
The Prosecutor General’s Office is to charge the company’s Managing Director Sobah Mohamed and Director Mohamed Musthaz with fraud.
Prosecutors decided to move forward with these cases in August. The police and the Anti-Corruption Commission has been investigating the company following its dispute against Fenaka Corporation and STELCO (State Electric Company).
While the Prosecutor General’s Office and the statutory oversight body were building said case, proceedings for the dispute are currently ongoing at the Civil Court.
ACC’s chair Hassan Luthufee told RaajjeMV in June that the commission will conclude their investigation soon and publicize findings.
Fenaka Corporation had paid Sharu Launch Services 17 million to acquire the equivalent in US dollars at an exchange rate of MVR 15.42 per dollar.
The agreement between Fenaka and Sharu Launch Services was that the sum be transferred to the state operated company within a period of thirty days. The company had issued a series of cheques, allegedly bearing a guarantee from the Mauritius Commercial Bank, which had all bounced.
Fenaka Corporation’s Managing Director Ahmed Shareef said that Sharu Launch Services had proposed to pay the sum in installments before the year 2030.
Fenaka had refused this proposal and counter-proposed that Sharu Launch Services make the payment in three cheques – which was denied by the company.
STELCO had gone through a similar ordeal with Sharu Launch Services, where it had attempted to buy dollars from the company.
STELCO had paid Sharu Launch Services a sum of just over 3 million (MVR 3,084,000) to acquire USD 200,000.
In July, the Civil Court ordered Sharu Launch Services to pay the amount in full within a period of thirty days.
Sharu Launch Services is pursuing a case against the Mauritius Commercial Bank for MVR 150 million. The bank was the guarantor for both transactions.
