Bidco CEO Vimal Shah Accuses Nicholas Nesbitt of Orchestrating Fraud Scheme in Dollar Financing Deal
Bidco Africa chief executive Vimal Bhinji Shah has detailed how businessman Nicholas Alexander Nesbitt and Briton Bulent Boytorun Mehment allegedly visited his home and persuaded him into a dollar-financing deal that later turned into a criminal dispute.
Shah told the court that the two men introduced themselves as business partners capable of supplying large amounts of US dollars to support Bidco’s operations in exchange for Kenya shillings.
According to the tycoon, the discussion led to the signing of a Trade Finance Agreement between Bidco Africa Ltd—represented by Shah—and Bee N Bee Kenya Ltd, represented by Boytorun.
Shah: Nesbitt Exploited Our Relationship to Induce the Deal
While opposing Nesbitt’s application seeking to halt his prosecution, Shah said he only entered into the agreement because of a pre-existing relationship with the businessman. He accused Nesbitt of deliberately exploiting that trust to advance a fraudulent scheme targeting Bidco Africa.
Shah insisted that it was Nesbitt’s representations that convinced Bidco to enter into the controversial arrangement with Bee N Bee Kenya.
Complaint to DCI Sparked Criminal Charges
Feeling defrauded, Shah reported the matter to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI). The complaint prompted the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to approve criminal charges against Nesbitt and his associate.
Nesbitt has since denied charges of conspiracy to defraud, while his co-accused reportedly fled the country.
Bidco: Court Should Not Interfere With DPP’s Independence
Shah and Bidco argue that Nesbitt has not demonstrated any violation of the Constitution or abuse of power by the DPP to justify halting the case.
In submissions filed before the court, the company stated:
“No evidence has been tendered to show that the DPP abused his discretion or powers under the Constitution.”
Bidco added that the documents Nesbitt filed only point to a pending civil dispute, which does not stop parallel criminal proceedings.
The company further emphasized that the DPP’s prosecutorial independence must be respected and that courts should only intervene in exceptional circumstances, which they say are absent in this case.
“The application by Nesbitt does not meet the threshold required to warrant this Court to interfere with the discretion of the DPP,” the court heard.
The matter continues.