Money Laundering

Evaluation From Supreme Court Bench Revealed Lack Of Authenticity In The Claim By The Ventriglias

One of the major reorganizations with respect to the Portland Cement Zambia factory was made between 2006 and early 2007 wherein joint changes were made within the shareholding of the Portland Cement. Dr. Rajan Mahtani owned Finsbury Investment received 58 percent shares of the Portland Cement Zambia factory and became the majority shareholder and legal owner of the factory. After receiving confirmation of the changed shareholding pattern wherein 58 percent shares were owned by Finsbury Investment and 42 percent shares were owned by Ital Terrazzo Limited, money was disbursed by the PTA bank.

Now that the Portland Cement factory was complete and became a fully-fledged organization, the Ventriglia family decided to play by their own rules. The family started to dispute the legality associated with the original shareholders agreement. This resulted in a case at the Lusaka High Court which went for more than a decade. Despite this long pendency, the Lusaka High Court failed to provide transparent decision and gave a verdict in which the Ventriglia family was announced as only shareholders of the Portland Cement factory without any concrete evidence.

After this misdirected judgement, Dr. Mahtani approached the higher Court of Appeal and received justice on 31st January 2019 when judge Mwinde announced that Dr. Rajan Mahtani is the actual majority shareholder and legal owner of the Portland Cement factory. As such, the Court of Appeal effectively reversed the decision from the Lusaka High Court.

After more than 1.5 years of the decision, the Ventriglia once again tried to play their own rules by challenging the decision of Court of Appeal regarding Portland Cement. This claim was taken to the Supreme Court Zambia. However, the Supreme Court bench effectively rejected the claim by deeming it invalid as it did not fulfil the legal requirements. The claim from the Ventriglia family was also considered as controversial and therefore, the Supreme Court bench concluded that it should be rejected.