BR Shetty case: New UAE ruling opens door to Bank of Baroda transaction files

Abu Dhabi: NMC Healthcare and its administrators have won a major court ruling in Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) that will let them see Bank of Baroda’s internal reports on suspected suspicious transactions in their case against NMC founder B.R. Shetty, Gulf News can reveal.

The judge presiding over the case, Justice Sir Andrew Smith, said in a November 26 judgement that under the UAE’s 2025 anti-money laundering laws, banks can share this highly confidential material in civil court cases if a court order allows it.

The case is part of NMC’s lawsuit against Shetty, former CEO Prasanth Manghat, and Bank of Baroda, in which NMC alleges it was the victim of serious fraud and misconduct that led to its collapse and administration.

Bank of Baroda, one among India’s top five banks, is alleged to have been involved in the disputed transactions at the heart of the wider NMC collapse. Now, NMC, under administration, wants to test what the bank knew, when it knew it, and how it responded through its anti-money laundering controls.

What are SRTs and why do they matter?

Banks in the UAE must file a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) when they suspect funds in an account may be linked to crime or seem unusual. These reports are then sent to the UAE’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and are usually kept confidential to protect investigations and prevent “tipping off” customers. FIU is the UAE’s national centre for financial crime intelligence.​

NMC asked the court to force Bank of Baroda to hand over:

• Any STRs related to NMC

• Internal AML “Internal Reports” raised inside the bank.

• “No‑STR Decisions” – cases where staff flagged something, but the bank decided not to file an STR, with reasons.​

NMC says these documents could show whether Baroda spotted red flags about NMC, what it did about them, and whether it failed in its duties as a lender.​

UAE’s revised AML laws

In April and June 2025, Justice Smith (who also presided over the previous hearings) had previously agreed with Baroda that an older 2018 UAE AML law made it a criminal offence to disclose STRs in this civil case. He then issued a ‘June Order’ saying Baroda “may not disclose” STRs or any documents revealing if STRs existed.​

However, on October 14, a new law came into force: Federal Decree-Law No. 10 of 2025 on Anti-Money Laundering, Counter-Terrorism Financing, and Counter-Proliferation Financing. This new law still states that STR information is confidential, but it adds a key provision allowing disclosure in “other situations permitted by law”.​

The judge said there had been “a material change in the sense of a fundamental change of circumstances” after the 2025 anti-money laundering law came into force, allowing him to revisit his earlier order blocking disclosure.

The judge examined the Arabic phrase for this ‘al musarrah biha – translated in the judgment as “in other situations permitted by law.” Following this, he decided it was meant to be broader than the old law. He also said that if a UAE court orders disclosure in a civil case, the disclosure is now “permitted by law” and does not violate AML rules.​

The three applications and the outcome

There were three applications before the judge:

• Set Aside Application (NMC): NMC asked to cancel the June Order that blocked STR disclosure.​

• Disclosure Application (NMC): NMC asked for STRs, internal reports and “no‑STR” decisions.​

• Baroda’s Application: Baroda asked to extend the June Order so that even internal reports linked to STRs would stay protected.​

Justice Sir Andrew Smith:

• Granted NMC’s Set Aside Application – the old June ban will be lifted on terms to be decided.​

• Granted NMC’s Disclosure Application in principle – Baroda must search for and disclose STRs and internal AML documents, again subject to detailed conditions.​

• Refused Baroda’s Application – the bank failed to expand the secrecy shield over its internal reports.​

He asked the lawyers to draft a detailed order and to agree on costs, with a deadline for submitting their rival drafts if they do not reach an agreement.​

Secrecy and fairness

The judge accepted that STRs are “highly confidential” and that the AML system depends on banks being honest and cooperative with the FIU. He stressed that there are strong penalties for wrongly disclosing STR information under the 2025 law.​

But he also pointed out that NMC’s claims against Baroda are “very serious” and said these documents could be “of considerable assistance” in deciding if the bank acted properly. He noted that even evidence that no STRs were made could be important.​

To protect investigations, he suggested:

• Giving the FIU and any other authority a chance to object if a particular disclosure might harm a case.​

• Considering limits on how STR‑related material is used or discussed in open court.​

Since 2020, BR Shetty and his companies have faced investigations and lawsuits in the UAE, the UK, India, and elsewhere, following the uncovering of hidden debt and alleged fraud at NMC and related firms.​

In October, a Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) court ordered Shetty to pay $46 million to State Bank of India after finding he repeatedly lied under oath about signing a personal guarantee for a $50 million loan. Shetty, however, has maintained he was the victim of a “complex fraud” by former executives and is fighting multiple cases as the NMC story continues to unfold.