Nirav Modi sold fake diamonds to Canadian national, his engagement is now broken
New Delhi : Jeweller Nirav Modi, who is wanted in a multi-crore banking fraud in India, allegedly sold fake diamond rings to a Canadian national that cost him US$200,000, his girlfriend and also pushed him into depression.
According to a report in the South China Morning Post, Paul Alfonso, who had no clue Modi was involved in a US$2 billion fraud at India’s Punjab National Bank, bought two rings from the diamantaire in Hong Kong to propose to his girlfriend. Their celebration was cut short after the duo found out that the diamonds were fake.
According to the report, Alfonso met Nirav Modi in 2012 at the centennial celebrations for the Beverly Hills Hotel in 2012. Months later, they ran into each other in Malibu and dined together. Adding that Modi was giving him “pep talk, kind of an older brother figure,” Alfonso, who is the chief executive of a payment processing company, said he felt a “good connection” with Modi. “In a way, I admired him and I looked up to him.”
A couple of years passed without any communication between the duo. In April this year, Alfonso, utterly unaware of the financial irregularities cases listed against Modi, mailed the diamond jeweller asking for “special” engagement ring at a budget of US$100,000 to propose to his girlfriend. On offer from Modi was a “perfect” 3.2-carat round brilliant diamond cut, D colour, VVS1 – a high-quality grade and colourless stone at US $120,000. “Thank you for thinking of me when you’re making one of the most meaningful purchases in any man’s life,” Modi wrote after Paul Alfonso approved the design.
Alfonso’s girlfriend, however, expressed interest in another ring prompting him to order a second ring – a 2.5 carat oval diamond for US$80,000 from Modi. After Alfonso wired the money for both rings to a Hong Kong account, he received the rings from Modi’s assistant Ari in June. The invoice and authenticity certificates were to be wired soon. Alfonso who was ecstatic with the “absolutely gorgeous” jewellery, proposed to his girlfriend with both rings. The answer was “yes”.
Both Alfonso and his fiancee wanted the rings to be insured, but the certificates had still not arrived. Feeling “uncomfortable,” he wrote to Modi reminding him of the same. Several emails followed, with Modi providing more assurances that the certificates were on their way.
In August, Alfonso was in for a rude shock when his fiancee, who took the rings to an appraiser, found that the stones were fake. “When she told me, I was like ‘That’s impossible. I spent US$200,000 on those rings. There’s no way they are fake. It’s Nirav we are talking about’.”
Another shock followed when he read the news about Modi’s bankrupt companies and loan defaults. “I am usually very careful when I am dealing with a big transaction like this, but again, this is Nirav. I would not imagine him trying to take a few hundred thousand from me when a guy is worth millions of dollars.”
His fiancee broke up with him soon after. “We broke up literally after one or two days … It was just too much for both of us to handle. It does not make sense to her, because she says: ‘You are a pretty smart guy, how did you let someone scam you out of US$200,000 without making sure the transaction was legitimate?’” Alfonso told the South China Morning Post.
Alfonso slipped into depression and said, “after that, I could not function”. In an angry email to Modi on August 13, Alfonso wrote, “Do you have any idea what kind of pain you’ve cost me and my now ex-fiancée? … You’ve completely ruined such a wonderful occasion for me and her. You’ve ruined my life.”
He has now filed an unlimited civil lawsuit against Modi with the Superior Court of California, suing him for US$4.2 million dollars. That includes US$200,000 for the value of the rings, US$1 million for punitive damages and another US$3 million dollars for emotional distress, pain and suffering. The hearing is scheduled for January next year.
Alfonso, however, realises it too well that his case may take years to be resolved. “I realised that even if I go after this guy, there are so many creditors before me who are trying to get compensated.” Still, in disbelief, Alfonso says, “I want people to know that this man can’t be trusted …He doesn’t just steal from banks. He will steal from you too because his fortune has gone up in smoke.”
courtesy : indianexpress.com
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_28.jpeg)
