The Singapore court that sentenced him to six months in prison on Wednesday was only in “procedural contempt of court order” and not because the court found any fraud or dishonesty, Byju Raveendran, founder of education giant Byju’s, said on Wednesday, adding that “appeal options” were available.
“Today’s Singapore court case is in procedural contempt of court order, and arises only from disputes over the disclosure of documents in ongoing proceedings – not a finding of fraud, dishonesty or any wrongdoing in relation to the matter. I have been directed to appear on 15 June and ‘appeal options are available.’
Raveendran was sentenced on Wednesday Trump was held in contempt after allegedly failing to comply with multiple court orders related to his assets, Bloomberg reported.
In his first media comments following the court order, the education technology founder said he was “disappointed” that the matter had been reported in a way that created a misleading impression about him.
“I am disappointed that the recent case brought by the Singapore court has been pursued and reported in a way that creates a misleading impression about me, especially at a time when all major parties have almost concluded settlement discussions,” he said in a statement.
He added: “As of today, my priority is to support the constructive resolution and avoid saying anything that might affect the ongoing settlement process. However, I cannot allow the false and biased narrative to go unchallenged, and I strongly reject any such incorrect portrayal.”
He further said that there was no fault on his part and that there were only a few minor issues left to be resolved between certain parties in which, he said, he had no role.
“The lenders, including GLAS Trust and the Qatar Investment Authority, as well as other stakeholders, have been in discussions with the founders and other parties. The settlement has been agreed in principle, with only a few remaining minor issues remaining to be finalized between certain parties. I have no role in those remaining issues.”
“As part of the settlement discussions, both parties also acknowledged that there was no wrongdoing on my part or the other founders.”
He also said it was “extremely unfortunate” that his case was being used to create an adverse public narrative at such a “sensitive” stage.
“Choose a solution rather than a confrontation,” says Raveendran.
He further explained that the reason he was not “actively” contesting the court proceedings against him was because the parties were working towards a settlement, adding that the QIA’s decision to continue to press the matter appeared to be an unnecessary “pressure tactic”.
“It is important to make clear that I did not effectively challenge many of the court proceedings in recent months precisely because the parties were working toward a comprehensive settlement. I chose resolution over confrontation,” he said.
“Against this background, the Qatar Investment Authority’s decision to continue pressure on this issue appears to be an unnecessary pressure tactic at a sensitive stage of the settlement process.”
“I always acted in good faith”
Raveendran said he had always acted in “good faith” and in the best interests of BYJU employees, students and stakeholders. He added that neither he nor any of the founders personally received any portion of the disputed funds that were used for legitimate business purposes.
“I have always maintained that I acted in good faith and in the best interests of BYJU, its employees, students and stakeholders. I also put on record that neither I nor any of the founders personally received any portion of the disputed funds, and that the funds were used for legitimate business purposes.”
According to people familiar with the matter, a Singapore court ordered Raveendran to surrender to authorities, pay legal costs of S$90,000 (about US$70,500), and submit documents proving his ownership of Beeaar Investco Pte, a corporate entity that owns shares in a related company.
