CBI files fresh Rotomac chargesheet over alleged forged LC papers

The Enforcement Action

The Central Bureau of Investigation has widened its case against those it accuses of defrauding Allahabad Bank through the Kanpur-based trading firm M/s Rotomac Exim Pvt. Ltd. According to reporting on the matter, the agency has filed a roughly 17,000-page supplementary chargesheet naming Rajesh Bothra over letters of credit the CBI alleges were supported by forged bills of lading. The fresh filing builds on the agency's registered case RC0062020A0004 of 2020, first lodged on 25 February 2020.

The scale of the specific transaction is set out in the official record. Per the Allahabad High Court's bail order dated 7 April 2026, the case concerns a foreign letter of credit, LC No. 0007016FLU000125 dated 14 September 2016, issued by Allahabad Bank for USD 75 lakh. When the instrument devolved on 21 February 2017, it left a liability of Rs 51,43,50,000. The order records that the debit balance in the account stood at Rs 43,08,99,106, later reduced to Rs 36,84,30,106 after recovery proceedings.

This is a criminal-investigation matter, and every characterisation below is drawn from what the CBI has alleged and what the court has recorded, not from any finding of guilt. The High Court has already granted Bothra bail, on a personal bond of Rs 50,00,000 with two sureties, on conditions including surrender of his passport and a bar on leaving the country until the trial concludes. In those proceedings he argued that he had been falsely implicated, had cooperated with the investigation despite pandemic-era travel restrictions, and had been enlarged on bail in most of the related matters. The CBI opposed the plea.

How the Scheme Worked

The mechanism, as the prosecution describes it in the material summarised by the court, turned on merchanting trade: buying goods abroad and selling them abroad, with an Indian bank financing the leg in between. The CBI alleges that M/s Rotomac Exim Pvt. Ltd., which held itself out as an import-export business, ran these as "paper transactions" rather than genuine shipments, and used them to draw credit from Allahabad Bank.

Central to the allegation is the documentation that underpins a letter of credit. A bank issuing an LC relies on trade papers - chiefly the bill of lading, the document a carrier issues to acknowledge that goods have actually been shipped. The order identifies one such document, Bill of Lading No. HKAELM60909726/1B dated 25 August 2016, which the prosecution alleges was forged. Where the shipping paper is fabricated, the bank is lending against a transaction that, on the CBI's case, never physically occurred.

The agency further alleges that Bothra controlled a web of overseas entities, naming M/s Gulf Distribution Ltd., Fareast Distribution and Kobian Pte. Ltd., through which circular payments were routed. On the prosecution's account, advance payments were made by these related parties to satisfy the banking conditions for issuing the foreign letters of credit and to make the trades appear to be arm's-length dealings, when the money was allegedly moving between entities under common control. The order also refers to fabricated "sundry debtor" records - the ledger entries that would ordinarily show genuine customers owing money for goods received.

On the procedural history, the order records that the CBI registered its FIR on 25 February 2020, filed its chargesheet on 22 December 2020, and arrested Bothra on 2 December 2025. The bail application was reserved on 13 March 2026 and decided on 7 April 2026. The directors of M/s Rotomac Exim Pvt. Ltd., named in the order as Vikram Kothari and Rahul Kothari, and a collateral depositor named as Fida Ali Moiz Bhai Mithiborwala, also feature in the case as the court recorded it. All are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

The Law Invoked

The offences the CBI has invoked, as listed in the High Court order, are Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In plain terms, Section 120-B addresses criminal conspiracy, the agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence. Section 420 covers cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, the core charge where a lender is said to have parted with money on a false basis. Sections 468 and 471 deal with forgery for the purpose of cheating and with using a forged document as genuine - the provisions that map directly onto the alleged fake bill of lading. Section 477-A concerns falsification of accounts.

The Prevention of Corruption Act provisions are used where a public servant is alleged to be involved; Section 13, in the form cited, relates to criminal misconduct by a public servant. Their inclusion signals that the CBI's case, as framed, extends beyond the private borrower to the conduct around the sanction and handling of the facility. These are the sections the document itself cites; the eventual charges are for the trial court to frame.

What Happens Next

A chargesheet is not the end of a case but the trigger for the next stage. The trial court must first take cognizance of the supplementary chargesheet and decide whether there is enough material to proceed. Charges are then framed, after which the accused can seek discharge; if the matter goes to trial, the prosecution must prove each allegation, witnesses are examined and cross-examined, and the accused records a statement under Section 313 of the criminal procedure code before any verdict.

Bail, already granted here, runs in parallel and decides only whether the accused stays in custody pending trial, not whether the allegations are true. The conditions imposed - the surrender of the passport, the bar on foreign travel, the bond and sureties - are safeguards to secure attendance, not punishments. Should the trial end in conviction, the accused retains rights of appeal to the High Court and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

At every stage before a verdict, the contents of the chargesheet remain allegations subject to due process. A chargesheet contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues.

What It Means

For depositors and ordinary investors, trade-finance cases like this one are a reminder that the losses land, ultimately, on the banking system that the public funds and relies on. A devolved letter of credit means the bank, not the trader, is left holding the liability. That is why the recovery arithmetic in the order - a claim pared from over Rs 43 crore to under Rs 37 crore - matters: enforcement is as much about clawing money back as about assigning blame.

The practical lesson sits one layer removed from most retail investors, but it is worth knowing how the guardrails work. Documentary trade finance depends on the authenticity of shipping papers, and this case shows how a forged bill of lading is alleged to have slipped a fictitious transaction past those checks. For anyone assessing a company, the same instinct applies: verify counterparties against independent records rather than the paperwork they supply. Company filings sit on the MCA portal, the RBI and credit bureaus publish fraud and wilful-defaulter data, and listed firms' disclosures are on the exchanges.

None of this is cause for alarm about the banking system as a whole, and none of it decides the Rotomac Exim case. The point is narrower and calmer: enforcement agencies pursue these matters for years, the official record is public, and readers are better served checking that record than reacting to a headline.

FAQ

Does a CBI chargesheet establish that the accused did it?

No. A chargesheet, FIR or provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The CBI's case in RC0062020A0004 of 2020 has not been tested at trial, and the Allahabad High Court has already granted Rajesh Bothra bail. Nothing here should be read as a court finding of wrongdoing.

What exactly has the CBI alleged?

Per the material recorded in the High Court's bail order, the CBI alleges that Rotomac Exim used sham merchanting-trade transactions, forged bills of lading and fabricated debtor records to obtain a foreign letter of credit from Allahabad Bank, which then devolved on the bank. The agency alleges Rajesh Bothra routed circular payments through overseas entities to make the trades look genuine. These remain allegations to be proved.

Can a CBI chargesheet be challenged?

Yes. A chargesheet only sets the stage for trial once the court takes cognizance. The accused can seek discharge, contest the charges when they are framed, cross-examine witnesses and appeal any eventual conviction. Bail, as granted here on 7 April 2026, is separate from the merits and does not decide guilt or innocence.

How can I check whether an exporter or borrower is genuine?

Trade-finance fraud is largely a bank-side risk, but retail investors can still verify counterparties. Company filings are searchable on the MCA portal, wilful-defaulter and fraud data are published by the RBI and credit bureaus, and a listed entity's disclosures sit on the exchange websites. Registration checks will not catch every forged document, but they flag entities already under regulatory scrutiny.

Where can I read the official record?

The Allahabad High Court's bail order dated 7 April 2026 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 403 of 2026 is published on Indian Kanoon and sets out the CBI's case number, the charges, the amounts and the alleged modus operandi. It is the primary public document behind this report.

This report is based on the official Allahabad High Court bail order dated 7 April 2026 in Rajesh Bothra vs Central Bureau of Investigation, which documents CBI case RC0062020A0004 of 2020. The supplementary chargesheet was surfaced via coverage carried on Google News.