Until recently, the Radiant World group of companies was little known outside the world of iron ore trading. But in the last two months, the company has faced an onslaught of accusations from lenders that it issued fake invoices, alongside a breakdown of its once-close relationship with mining and trading giant Glencore. Radiant World has denied wrongdoing.
Here, drawing on our own reporting and other sources, GTR unpacks the allegations levelled at the company, what it has said in response, what is set to happen next and the potential implications for invoice financing.
What business was Radiant World in?
Radiant World was founded by Pinkesh Nahar in 2003 as Royalline Resources Limited. It has primarily traded iron ore, with operations centred on Singapore and Dubai and focusing on sales to China. Nahar also founded a Hong Kong company, Sapphire Minmetals, but reportedly sold it in 2015. The two companies still co-operate closely, however, and Sapphire and its principal, Rakesh Sethi, have also been sued by lenders.
For most of its existence, Radiant World was a relatively small player in the iron ore market. Earlier this decade, it opened offices in Geneva and London and expanded into base metals trading, with its trading activity ramping up considerably in recent years.
The company said its turnover doubled in 2025, and that it had revenues of US$1bn per month in 2025. However, this figure has “recently” fallen to between US$400mn and US$500mn per month, a lawyer for Radiant World told a London court last week.
What are the allegations against Radiant World?
Several financiers and one major counterparty, Glencore, have made public allegations against Radiant World in recent weeks. They all follow a similar pattern: that the firm fabricated documents such as invoices, contracts and emails, and presented them to banks in order to obtain or continue receivables financing facilities. Most of what has been alleged to date is said to have taken place this year.
Mizuho has filed an application to have Radiant World Corporation Pte Ltd, a Singapore entity, placed in judicial management. In a filing first reported by GTR, the bank alleged that Radiant World had fabricated emails from Glencore that purported to confirm the existence of US$95.5mn in receivables the Japanese lender had financed.
LAM Trade Finance Group II, a Jefferies fund, said in an August legal claim that it “gradually uncovered that many of the documents purportedly supporting the unpaid receivables had been falsified, including invoices, contracts, and notices of assignment”, and last week accused Radiant World of carrying out a “very serious, very large and very complicated fraud”.
Radiant World has stated it “rejects, in the clearest terms, the allegations of wrongdoing that have been made against it and the companies associated with it”.
Glencore issued a statement last week saying it had “confirmed evidence” Radiant World and associated companies “sent falsified invoices and contracts as well as fabricated emails, which they fraudulently claimed to have received from Glencore personnel, to a number of financial institutions”.
So far, none of these claims have been fully tested in a trial. Following an application from LAM, a London court granted a worldwide freezing order against Radiant companies, Sapphire Minmetals, Nahar and Sethi in August. In doing so, the court only had to find that the fund had a “good arguable case” against the trader.
Last week, a different London judge ordered Radiant World and Sapphire Minmetals to notify LAM before making any payments exceeding US$500,000 in value.
Police in Singapore carried out a search at Radiant World’s office in August, and the US Department of Justice is also probing the firm’s business, according to a Bloomberg report the same month.
The nature of the inquiries has not been made public. Radiant World said at the time it was not aware of any US investigations. The company has yet to file full defences in any of the cases against it.
What has Radiant World said in response?
After Bloomberg published a story on July 31 reporting that counterparties such as Cargill, Glencore and Vitol had stopped doing business with Radiant World due to concerns about the validity of invoices, the company posted a statement on its website saying the claims against it “are inaccurate and unsubstantiated”.
“Radiant World conducts its business to the highest commercial and legal standards and complies with all due diligence requirements with its lending partners,” a spokesperson said.
“As a longstanding policy, we do not comment publicly on confidential commercial relationships or the business of our counterparties. We therefore will not comment on purported discussions involving specific customers, suppliers, lenders or other market participants.”
In response to the more recent allegations made by Glencore, the firm said in a statement on its website this month that it “rejects, in the clearest terms, the allegations of wrongdoing that have been made against it and the companies associated with it”.
“This is, and has always been, a commercial dispute arising out of a genuine and longstanding trading relationship. Radiant World deeply regrets that it has been made the subject of public allegations that has caused grave damage to its business and reputation,” the statement said.
How is Glencore involved?
One of the most recent developments in the saga has come from revelations about Glencore’s long-standing and complex relationship with Radiant World. The pair began doing business in around 2009, but the ties grew closer in 2021. That year, Radiant World made a poorly timed bet on the price of iron ore, leaving it more than US$1bn in the red to Glencore, according to media reports citing Singapore court documents.
But the duo reportedly struck a deal in which Glencore would help Radiant World continue doing business and indeed ramp up its trading volumes while the debt was gradually paid down. An equity stake for Glencore in its junior partner was also mooted.
The dealings became unstuck in the middle of this year, however, as Glencore was repeatedly confronted by lenders who said they were holding Radiant World-issued invoices that Glencore was obligated to honour, according to court documents seen by GTR and other media reports. Glencore has alleged that the invoices were not genuine and the underlying receivables never existed.
In response, Radiant World reportedly alleged in a lawsuit against Glencore filed earlier this month that the Swiss trader hid the “true nature” of the relationship between the pair from auditors after Glencore was placed under US Department of Justice monitorship as part of a guilty plea to bribery offences. WhatsApp exchanges reported by the Financial Times included Glencore executive Peter Hill telling Nahar that one of his phones “is monitored”.
A further twist in the relationship came last week when Glencore suspended Hill, now head of steelmaking raw materials, pending the outcome of a review into Glencore’s dealings with Radiant World, according to several reports. Glencore has said its remaining exposure to Radiant World is “well under” US$500mn.
Who are the company’s known creditors?
| Creditor | Exposure |
| Glencore | Under US$500mn* |
| Jefferies/LAM | Up to US$499mn** |
| Intesa Sanpaolo | €200mn*** |
| Deutsche Bank | US$102.6mn |
| Mizuho | US$95.5mn |
| Mariner Investment Group | US$48.6mn |
| Incomlend | US$34mn |
| Rio Tinto | Unknown |
*Glencore has said its exposure is “well under” US$500mn. **The value of the freezing order obtained by LAM. ***The value of the provision taken against the bank’s exposure.
Sources: Company announcements, court documents, GTR reporting, Pinkesh Nahar affidavit cited by Bloomberg.
Financiers and counterparties who claim to be owed money by Radiant World include Glencore and LAM, as well as banks Mizuho, Intesa Sanpaolo and Deutsche Bank, and Singapore invoice finance platform Incomlend.
Belgian lender KBC and Anglo-Australian iron ore miner Rio Tinto are also listed as parties on Mizuho’s court application to have Radiant World’s Singapore entity placed under judicial management.
Most of the exposures stem from receivables financing arrangements under which funds are due from entities that bought cargoes from Radiant World. However, lenders are, at least for now, seeking repayment from Radiant World because of the accusations that it fabricated invoices and other documents supporting the purported receivables.
An Intesa Sanpaolo spokesperson told Reuters in August that the bank had made a provision on its exposure to the trader. Deutsche Bank told GTR its claim represents its “maximum exposure” and that the bank is “pursuing all available recovery options”. Mariner Investments has an exposure of US$48.6mn, according to Bloomberg. The firm did not respond to a request for comment.
Radiant World has repaid almost all of its traditional letter of credit-based trade finance facilities, except one owed to KBC that is expected to be settled soon, Nahar said in a September affidavit cited by Bloomberg.
The company secured financing from various other lenders in recent years, including Société Générale, Swiss lender Zürcher Kantonalbank and stablecoin giant Tether, according to people familiar with the company.
What happens next?
Radiant World is now involved in at least three separate legal challenges:
- Mizuho’s attempt to place the group’s Singapore entity in judicial management, supported by other creditors
- A US$499mn worldwide freezing order obtained by LAM Trade Finance Group II
- A US$34mn claim in Singapore made by Incomlend
Further hearings in Mizuho’s case are scheduled in the coming days. If the bank is successful, the Singapore entity will be placed in the hands of interim judicial managers from Deloitte.
Radiant World, Nahar, Sapphire Minmetals and Sethi have all indicated they will challenge the freezing order issued by a London judge in late August. Further hearings have been scheduled over the next few months.
Why does it matter?
The most significant reason it has captured market attention is that lenders are potentially facing large losses from their receivables financing facilities with Radiant World. But more broadly, this case has once again linked trade finance to allegations of fraud. Attention will now turn to the US$1bn of receivables Radiant World has declared on its books.
The saga comes less than a year after claims of wrongdoing at US auto-parts supplier First Brands, which also involve the creation of allegedly fake receivables and have ensnared several private credit lenders and banks. The former chief executive of UK oil conglomerate Prax, Winston Soosaipillai, has also been accused by the group’s administrators last year of creating more than US$300mn of fake receivables. He has strenuously denied the claims.
Together, the allegations could harm the availability of invoice financing if banks, asset managers and investors that fund those programmes pull back.
