Mauritius Directors on Notice: You Can No Longer Hide Behind the Company

The Financial Crimes Commission (FCC) has secured a significant conviction and laid formal charges against company directors for submitting false declarations and fraudulent training refund claims to the Human Resources Development Council (HRDC).

The cases underscore that directors and managers can no longer hide behind the corporate veil when companies engage in financial crime.

• In November 2025, the FCC formally charged two directors — Sham Mathura and Nandini Bawol-Bisnauthsing — of BSP School of Accountancy and Management Ltd and BSP Ltd with 18 counts of money laundering.
• They allegedly benefited from approximately Rs 250,685 obtained through false declarations submitted to the HRDC between late 2016 and early 2018.
• The charges were brought under sections 3(1)(b), 6 and 8 of the FIAMLA, conjointly with section 44(1)(b) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act.
• In March 2026, Leeneshwar Mohes, director of KDDN Co. Ltd., was convicted by the Financial Crimes Division of the Intermediate Court on 33 counts of money laundering.
• The company had submitted fraudulent claims to the HRDC for training allowances on courses that were never conducted.
• Mohes was ordered to pay a total fine of MUR 1,836,500.
• He was held personally accountable under sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 6 and 8 of the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2002, read together with section 44(1)(b) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act.

These cases demonstrate the FCC's firm stance on holding individuals in management positions criminally responsible for corporate misconduct, particularly when public funds or regulatory schemes, such as the HRDC training levy, are involved.

⚠️ Warning to Directors, Shareholders and Company Officers: You Can Be Held Personally Accountable

The recent HRDC cases are not isolated. They send a clear and powerful message:

• In Mauritius, the corporate veil offers far less protection than many believe when it comes to financial crime, fraud, false declarations, or regulatory non-compliance.

Section 44(1)(b) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act is the key weapon used by prosecutors.

• It provides that where a body corporate commits an offence, every person who was concerned in the management of that company at the time also commits the same offence — unless they can prove:
• The offence was committed without their knowledge or consent, and
• They took all reasonable steps to prevent it.
• This reverses the usual burden,
• Making it risky for directors to claim "I didn't know" or "it was the company's fault."

What this means in practice

• HRDC fraud is only one example. The same legal principle applies (or can be applied) to false declarations or misconduct in areas such as:
• Tax filings and Mauritius Revenue Authority matters
• Financial Services Commission (FSC) regulated entities
• Anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations
• Environmental, health & safety, or data protection compliance
• Any other regulatory or statutory reporting
• Ignorance is not a defence.
• Courts expect directors to have proper oversight, compliance systems, and documentation showing they exercised reasonable diligence.
• Personal consequences can be severe:
• Fines, asset forfeiture, criminal records, and even imprisonment in serious cases.
• "It was just the company" no longer works.
• Prosecutors are increasingly targeting individuals, not just the corporate entity.

Practical advice for directors and officers

1. Implement real compliance systems — not just paper policies.
2. Document your oversight — board minutes, compliance reports, due diligence on key transactions.
3. Ask questions and verify — especially where public funds, grants, refunds or regulatory claims are involved.
4. Seek professional advice early when red flags appear.
5. Never assume "the company will take the hit." You may be next.

The FCC has made it clear:

• Good governance is no longer optional. Directors who fail to take their responsibilities seriously risk personal criminal liability — whether the issue is HRDC claims today or another regulatory or financial matter tomorrow.
• If you are a director or involved in the management of a Mauritian company, now is the time to review your oversight practices and compliance framework.
• The cost of inaction could be far higher than the cost of proper governance.

End

Sources

Official Sources (Financial Crimes Commission – FCC)

• FCC Announcement – Leeneshwar Mohes / KDDN Co. Ltd. conviction (March 2026) https://fcc.mu/director-of-company-found-guilty-of-money-laundering-over-fraudulent-hrdc-claims/
• FCC Announcement – Sham Mathura & Nandini Bawol-Bisnauthsing formal charges (November 2025) https://fcc.mu/accusations-formelles-de-blanchiment-dargent-a-lencontre-de-m-sham-mathura-et-mme-nandini-bawol-bisnauthsing/
• ICAC Judgments Compilation (Jan–Aug 2023) – includes the earlier HRDC-related case (Lungut / Sunrise Academy Ltd) https://fcc.mu/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ICAC-JUDGMENTS-JAN-2023-TO-AUGUST-2023-1.pdf

Detailed Analysis & Reporting

• Comsure Group (Jersey) – Detailed breakdown of the Leeneshwar Mohes conviction, including the specific sections of FIAMLA and section 44(1)(b) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act (published March–May 2026) http://www.comsuregroup.com/news/33-counts-of-money-laundering-mauritian-fcc-secures-conviction-march-18-2026/
• Comsure Group – Earlier coverage of the ongoing Sham Mathura investigation (June 2025) http://www.comsuregroup.com/news/mauritius-money-laundering-investigation-continues-says-fcc/

Mauritian Media Reports

• L'Express.mu – Coverage of the formal charges against Sham Mathura and Nandini Bawol-Bisnauthsing (November 2025) https://lexpress.mu/s/accusations-formelles-de-blanchiment-dargent-a-lencontre-de-m-sham-mathura-et-mme-nandini-nandini-bawol-bisnauthsing-551471
• Defimedia.info and affiliated platforms – Multiple reports quoting the FCC communiqué on the 18-count charges against the two directors (November 2025)
• Local news outlets (NewsMoris, Sunday Times Mauritius, Le Mauricien, etc.) reporting on both cases.

Legal Provision

• Section 44(1)(b) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1974 (Mauritius) – the provision used to hold directors personally liable. This is a statutory provision and was explicitly cited in the FCC charges and court proceedings referenced above.

13 November 2025 - The Financial Crimes Commission (FCC) formally charged Mr Sham Mathura and Ms Nandini Bawol-Bisnauthsing with

• 18 counts of money laundering, contrary to sections 3(1)(b), 6 and 8 of the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2002,
• In conjunction with section 44(1)(b) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act.

As directors of BSP School of Accountancy and Management Ltd and BSP Ltd between 27 November 2016 and 9 January 2018, they are accused of illegally benefiting from Rs 250,685 obtained through false declarations to the Human Resources Development Council (HRDC).

The FCC reaffirms its commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all financial crimes are investigated and prosecuted in accordance with due process.

https://lexpress.mu/s/accusations-formelles-de-blanchiment-dargent-a-lencontre-de-m-sham-mathura-et-mme-nandini-nandini-bawol-bisnauthsing-551471