Byju Raveendran, the founder of Indian technology firm ’s, has been sentenced to six months in jail by a Singapore court for contempt, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, May 27.
Raveendran has not just been asked to serve six months in jail, but also instructed to pay $70,500 or ₹67,45,940. Giving the verdict, the court also said that Raveendran had disobeyed multiple orders related to his assets dating back to April 2024.
He has been instructed to surrender himself to officials, and provide documents proving his legal ownership of Beeaar Investco Pte, a corporate entity that held shares in a related company.
Raveendran claimed key parties were close to a settlement.
Following reports of a Singapore court issuing an arrest warrant in a contempt-related matter, said he was disappointed that the recent Singapore court matter had been pursued and reported in a manner that created a “misleading impression” about him, especially at a time when key parties had almost concluded settlement discussions.
He added that, as part of the settlement discussions, parties had also acknowledged that there had been no wrongdoing on his part or on the part of the other founders. He called it “deeply unfortunate” that the matter was being used to create a contrary public narrative at a sensitive stage.
Raveendran further said he had not been actively contesting several court proceedings in recent months because parties were working towards a comprehensive settlement. According to him, lenders and founders had in principle agreed not to actively pursue cases against each other and had effectively remained at a standstill for the past three months.
He also alleged that QIA’s decision to continue pressing the matter appeared to be an unnecessary pressure tactic during a sensitive stage of the settlement process.
Maintaining that he acted in good faith and in the best interests of , its employees, students and stakeholders, Raveendran said neither he nor any of the founders personally received any portion of the disputed funds and that the funds were used for legitimate business purposes.
He concluded by saying his priority remains supporting a constructive resolution and avoiding statements that could affect the ongoing settlement process, but added that he could not allow what he described as a “false and one-sided narrative” to go uncontested.