Lookout Notice for Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra in Rs 60-Crore Fraud Probe

A Rs 60.48 crore dispute has moved from boardrooms to border counters. Mumbai Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) has issued a lookout notice for actor Shilpa Shetty and entrepreneur Raj Kundra, flagging them to immigration authorities across Indian ports and airports. The circular, issued on September 5, 2025, follows a complaint filed last month by businessman Deepak Kothari, who says he was duped through the couple’s now-defunct home-shopping venture, Best Deal TV Private Limited.

The case was registered at Juhu police station on August 14, 2025. Kothari, director of Lotus Capital Finance Services—a non-banking financial company—alleges that between 2015 and 2023 he routed Rs 60.48 crore to Best Deal TV on assurances of steady returns and personal guarantees. He says the money was first taken as a loan, later reclassified as an investment, and never returned. The couple’s legal team has called the accusations baseless and malicious, insisting they will contest the claims.

What the LOC means and why it was issued

A lookout circular (LOC) is an administrative alert that tells immigration desks to watch for a specific person, inform the investigating agency on sight, and—in some cases—stop the person from leaving the country. Police typically seek one when they believe a suspect, witness, or person of interest travels abroad often or might be hard to reach if needed for questioning.

In this case, EOW cited frequent international travel by Shetty and Kundra as the trigger. Practically, this means if either arrives at or attempts to depart from an Indian airport, immigration systems will flag them. Depending on instructions embedded in the notice, officers may inform EOW, detain the person briefly for verification, or prevent departure until the investigating team weighs in. These notices are requested by authorized officers and processed by the Bureau of Immigration; they are periodically reviewed and can be extended as a probe progresses.

EOW has also started pulling in surrounding records—travel logs, bank statements, contracts, and board resolutions. The auditor associated with Best Deal TV has been called for questioning, a routine step in financial crime probes where investigators try to reconcile what was promised to investors with how money actually moved and what was recorded in the company’s books.

Issuing an LOC does not mean guilt. It signals that investigators want to ensure access to the individuals at the center of the complaint while they examine whether the dispute is a civil investment failure or crosses into criminal misrepresentation and cheating.

Inside the complaint: timeline, money trail, and disputes

Best Deal TV launched in 2015 as a celebrity-led TV commerce platform focused on lifestyle, health, fashion, and beauty products. The idea: blend star endorsements with homeshopping to power sales. According to Deepak Kothari’s complaint, that pitch extended to funding too.

Here’s how the timeline unfolds based on the complaint and police briefing:

• 2015: Best Deal TV begins operations. Kothari is introduced to Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty through an intermediary named Rajesh Arya.
• 2015–2016: Kothari says the couple sought funds, initially as a loan, promising 12% annual returns and repayment of principal. He alleges they later asked him to route the funds as an “investment” rather than a loan.
• April 2016: Kothari claims he received written personal guarantees from the couple backing the commitment to pay interest and return the principal.
• 2016: Shilpa Shetty resigns as a director of Best Deal TV, according to the complaint. Kothari says her exit came months after the guarantees were given.
• 2017: Insolvency proceedings reportedly begin against Best Deal TV for around Rs 1.28 crore. Kothari says he was not informed at the time.
• 2015–2023: Over multiple tranches, Kothari states he routed a total of Rs 60.48 crore into the company. He alleges the firm stopped servicing the promised returns and did not pay back the principal.

The core allegation is straightforward: Kothari says the money he provided was diverted for personal expenses and not used for the business as promised. He also says the classification shift—from loan to investment—was pitched as a tax-efficient move but left him without the protections he expected as a lender. If proved, that distinction could matter: loans typically carry clearer repayment obligations; investments carry risk, especially in a business that fails.

Investigators will look for three things: what was promised, what was documented, and what was done with the money. Expect them to examine:

• Contracts and emails: Were the 12% returns and personal guarantees documented? Were any side letters or board approvals recorded?
• Company filings: When did directors join and exit? What did annual reports and ROC filings say about borrowings vs. equity?
• Bank trails: Who received the funds? Were there transfers to other entities linked to the accused? Do ledger entries match bank statements?
• Auditor workpapers: How were the inflows booked? Were there red flags or qualifications in audit reports?
• Insolvency records: Why did the 2017 insolvency start, and what disclosures were made to creditors and investors?

EOW’s use of an LOC suggests they want prompt access to Shetty and Kundra for statements and clarifications while this paperwork is reviewed. If the documents back Kothari’s claims of personal guarantees and specific return promises, prosecutors could argue there was inducement under false assurances. If, instead, records show clear risk acknowledgments and equity-style terms, the matter could tilt towards a commercial dispute more suited to civil courts and insolvency forums.

The couple’s legal representatives have rejected the allegations outright, calling the complaint malicious and an attempt to malign their clients. They say appropriate legal action is being initiated against those making the claims. That response hints at a two-front battle: one inside the EOW’s investigation room, another in defamation or misuse-of-process filings to push back on the narrative.

Why does the launch history matter? Celebrity-backed retail ventures often rely on star goodwill to attract both customers and capital. Best Deal TV leaned heavily on celebrity association to win market share in India’s early TV-commerce boom. The complaint ties that aura to investor confidence—Kothari says he was persuaded by the couple’s assurances and stature, then left in the dark when the company’s fortunes soured.

There’s also the 2017 insolvency thread. If insolvency was triggered for dues of around Rs 1.28 crore, and if larger investor sums existed by then, the investigation will test whether stakeholders were informed in real time and whether any settlements were offered. Timing matters: Shetty’s alleged resignation as a director in 2016, the guarantees Kothari says he was given earlier that year, and the 2017 insolvency proceedings form a sequence that EOW will map against fund inflows and outflows.

One more fault line is the classification dispute—loan versus investment. From an investor’s perspective, a loan with a fixed interest and a personal guarantee offers clearer recourse. Reclassifying it as equity or a quasi-investment blurs repayment rights and pushes the investor behind secured creditors if the firm falters. If Kothari can show he was nudged into this switch without full risk disclosure, it strengthens his case. If the records show informed consent and standard investment language, the defense gains ground.

Police, for their part, often test intent. Failed businesses are not crimes by default. The line is crossed when inducement relies on false statements, material omissions, or misuse of funds. That’s why the money trail—expense heads, reimbursements, inter-corporate transfers—will be so central here. If investigators spot personal spending from company accounts without clear justification or board approval, it could support the complainant’s claims.

This isn’t the couple’s only brush with financial complaints this year. Earlier in 2025, they faced accusations tied to a gold-linked scheme. They denied wrongdoing in that matter as well. For EOW, patterns matter: multiple similar complaints can influence investigative urgency, though each case still turns on its own facts and documentation.

What should we expect next? Typically, EOW will record detailed statements from all parties, confront them with documents, and seek independent verification from auditors and banks. If inconsistencies pile up and cooperation drops, investigators can escalate—from summons to court-issued warrants. The LOC adds a layer of leverage by ensuring the duo can’t quietly exit the country mid-probe.

For Kothari, the path branches. The criminal complaint runs alongside possible civil remedies—arbitration if clauses exist, insolvency claims if windows are open, and recovery suits based on guarantees. If personal guarantees are genuine and enforceable, they can be powerful in civil proceedings, even as the criminal case tests intent and conduct.

For Shetty and Kundra, the immediate task is document-heavy: show where the money went, explain any reclassification, and produce board approvals and auditor sign-offs that point to transparency rather than concealment. If they can demonstrate that the business failed despite bona fide efforts—and that investor communications were clear—they’ll argue this belongs in a commercial courtroom, not a criminal dock.

The broader backdrop is a financial ecosystem more sensitive to celebrity-led ventures. Investors have become wary after a string of collapses in influencer-backed products and platforms. When star-powered companies stumble, probes tend to be sharper because the sales pitch—on air, on social, and in investor meetings—leans on credibility and assurance.

For now, the case turns on paper. EOW has the complaint, the sums, the alleged guarantees, and a company that shut shop years ago. The defense has a blanket denial and the promise of a counter-offensive. With the LOC active and the auditor in the hot seat, the next few weeks will show whether this becomes a high-profile arrest-and-charge-sheet affair or recedes into settlement talks and civil courtrooms. Either way, every ledger entry from 2015 to 2023 is about to get a very close read.