mumbai/bengaluru, June 8 -- Bengaluru-based Rajesh Exports Ltd (REL) and its crucial Singapore subsidiary gave contradictory statements to regulators in the two countries, a Mint review of documents showed, blurring the actual finances of overseas units that account for nearly all of its consolidated revenues. These statements are at the core of the charges of financial misreporting and revenue inflation that the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has levelled against the company in its 3 June interim order. According to the 3 June interim order, Rajesh Exports claimed it could not disclose the standalone financial statements of all its overseas subsidiaries, since the Singapore subsidiary-REL Singapore Pte Ltd-had consolidated and shared them. "REL further stated that the audited financial statements of the step-down subsidiaries were first consolidated at the level of REL Singapore and thereafter forwarded to REL for preparation of the final consolidated financial statements," Sebi said. However, the same Singapore subsidiary had got an exemption from local regulators from filing consolidated financials, stating that the aggregation will be done by Rajesh Exports in India. It filed its standalone financial statements only in Singapore, withholding the financials of other step-down subsidiaries of Rajesh Exports. "The company is exempted from the preparation of consolidated financial statements as the consolidated financial statements are prepared by the company's ultimate holding company, Rajesh Exports Limited, where the consolidated financial statements are available for public use," the Singapore unit said in regulatory filings in fiscal year 2024 (FY24) and FY25, according to a Mint review of the financials. REL Singapore Pte, which does not have revenue from operations, has yet to file its financials for the year ended 31 March 2026. "The corporate structure of REL makes it clear that the step-down units were insulated from oversight," said Ankita Singh, managing partner at Sarvaank Associates, a boutique law firm. "When a listed entity relies on cross-border corporate exemptions to play hide-and-seek with primary financial trails, it transitions from a failure of disclosure to a deliberate distortion of market information," Singh said. However, another lawyer cautioned against concluding that the company had lied, based solely on the inconsistency. "What emerges from the public record is a prima facie inconsistency. That inconsistency deserves explanation, but it would be premature to conclude, solely on that basis, that a false statement was made in either jurisdiction," said Sumit Agrawal, senior partner of Regstreet Law Advisors and a former Sebi official. The financial statements of these step-down subsidiaries are vital because they account for the bulk of Rajesh Exports' reported multi-trillion-rupee consolidated revenues. Sample this: in FY25, Rajesh Exports reported a consolidated revenue of Rs.4.23 lakh crore. Only Rs.7,027 crore, or less than 2% of this, came from the company's standalone operations in India. This means nearly 98% of Rajesh Exports' consolidated revenue in FY25 came from step-down subsidiaries based in Switzerland and Dubai, whose standalone financial statements have not been disclosed in either Singapore or India. "There is no disconnect or confusion," said Rajesh Mehta, the billionaire chairperson of Rajesh Exports. "I've told the Singapore authorities that my parent, Rajesh Exports, does all consolidation of the financials of the step-down subsidiaries, and so I will only be filing the standalone financials", Mehta said over the phone. "Now, if my Singapore business also prepares the consolidated financials and shares it with the parent, Rajesh Exports, which will take it into consideration when preparing the consolidated numbers, what is the problem or confusion?" So if REL Singapore Pte Ltd has the consolidated financial statements of its subsidiaries, why not file them with it, and why seek an exemption to file only standalone financials? Why should I waste (Singapore) $30 and burden myself with more compliance?" Mehta questioned....