Recently, a Swiss court delivered a significant verdict against members of the UK's wealthiest family by finding them guilty of exploiting domestic workers at their luxurious villa in Geneva. While the court acquitted the family members of the more severe charge of human trafficking as reported by The New York Times, the ruling still marks a notable legal outcome.
The court passed down prison sentences to four family members. Prakash and Kamal Hinduja received sentences of four years and six months, while Ajay and Namrata Hinduja were each sentenced to four years. Additionally, the court ordered the family to pay approximately USD 950,000 in compensation to the exploited workers and an additional USD 300,000 to cover procedural fees.
The prosecution had charged Prakash Hinduja, his wife Kamal, their son Ajay, and daughter-in-law Namrata with both trafficking and exploitation of workers from India. The accusations included severe mistreatment of the workers, such as confiscating their passports and compelling them to work excessively long hours often 16 hours a day or more without any overtime pay.
The Hindujas' legal team denied all allegations by arguing that the claims were unfounded. Despite these defences, the court's decision emphasized the severity of the exploitation charges that are leading to significant prison terms and financial penalties for the family members involved.
The Hinduja family heads a vast multinational conglomerate with significant investments across various sectors including real estate, automotive manufacturing, banking, oil and gas and healthcare. Their business empire highlights the prominent status and extensive reach of the family in global markets.
The trial began on June 10, where the lead prosecutor Yves Bertossa, presented a stark contrast in the family's spending priorities. He claimed that the family allocated more money for the care of a pet than they did for the salary of a single domestic worker. This argument reported by The New York Times and sourced from Swiss news media highlighted the alleged disregard for the well-being and fair compensation of their employees.
Romain Jordan, the Hinduja family's lawyer has firmly denied these accusations by describing them as "exaggerated and biased." In a statement issued before the verdict, he emphasized that the family members "vigorously deny these allegations." Despite these denials, the accusation paints a stark picture of exploitation and mistreatment.
These allegations are particularly striking given the Hinduja family's significant wealth and influence. They lead a multinational conglomerate with substantial investments in various sectors including real estate, automotive manufacturing, banking, oil and gas, and healthcare. The contrast between the family's wealth and the alleged treatment of their workers highlights the severity of the accusations brought against them.
Last week, a civil lawsuit involving the primary accusers who were employed by the Hinduja family was settled, according to Swiss media reports referenced by The New York Times. Although the details of the settlement were not disclosed, Jordan who was representing the accused, confirmed that the agreement was confidential and that the plaintiffs had withdrawn their complaints.
In the related criminal case, prosecutors sought severe penalties. They recommended that the court impose sentences of up to five and a half years for the accused along with demanding millions of francs in fines and compensation. This information was also reported by The New York Times citing Swiss news sources.
The Hinduja family led by three brothers oversees a vast conglomerate. Two of the brothers are based in the UK and across Europe. Their extensive property portfolio in London includes a 25-bedroom mansion and a luxurious five-star Raffles Hotel located in a historic former government building known as the Old War Office.
The eldest brother, Srichand P Hinduja, who served as the joint chairman of the Hinduja Group, passed away in 2023 at the age of 87. His death followed a prolonged internal dispute among family members over the control of the family's considerable assets. This ongoing conflict had added complexity to the family's business and personal relationships.
References: