Trafigura v Gupta, the London High Court trial that has been gripping the global commodities scene for over a month, concluded today as both sides made their closing statements.

The case saw the commodities trading house lose nearly $600 million on ‘buyback trades’ involving non-existent nickel. Trafigura was acting effectively as a trade financier for the transactions, lending off its own balance sheet once Citibank, its original lender, pulled its credit lines after having doubts on the validity of the trades.

In November 2022, however, Citibank became concerned about the unusual nickel deals it was financing and asked Trafigura to inspect the nickel shipments, but cut off financing before the inspection happened. Trafigura began to fund the cargo itself, but quickly found that the apparent high-quality nickel shipments were in fact containers filled with worthless scrap metal. 

The trial has involved gripping testimony from top Trafigura traders and Gupta himself, and uncovered details about the often murky world of commodities trade and financing. 

Much of the trial turned on who knew what

Few of the legal arguments turned on what was in fact in the containers, which all parties agree was not the LME-grade nickel Trafigura thought it was financing. Gupta’s principal defence is that Sokratis Okonomiou and Harshdeep Bhatia, two top Trafigura traders, not only knew about the fraudulent arrangement but had in fact come up with it themselves during a meeting in Dubai in 2019. 

Gupta’s team argues that following the 2020 email expressing concern over the “red flags” in the transactions, someone on Trafigura’s end must have acted fraudulently to assuage the managers’ concern. Trafiugura, on the other hand, argues that it would have been impossible for just two traders to perpetuate a fraud of this magnitude, and that other people must have been involved or had knowledge of it. 

Both traders have categorically denied any knowledge of the fraud; Bhatia refused to be cross-examined, saying he was not involved. WhatsApp messages revealed during the trial show Bhatia and Oikonomou working to stall the inspection at Gupta’s request, with Oikonomou messaging over WhatsApp: “I would need you to stall the inspection of the above mentioned cargo’s inorder to avoid any issues between us.” 

Oikonomou says he had been told by Gupta that the concerns around inspections were due to the risk of damaging the packaging of some cathodes in the containers.

Trafigura’s team also pointed out that had the fraud been orchestrated by the traders, it would have been spoken about openly between the trio, who were communicating through private WhatsApp group chats.

As suspicion was touted, messages became more incensed, with Okonomiou telling Bhatia in November 2022: “They need to cut the crap and send us the list [detailing the content of the containers] – I’m getting seriously pissed off Harsh. And seriously neither you or them want me losing it because if I do it’s game over. Explain to whomever you are talking to that I need a breakdown.”

It is unclear whether proving that Gupta wasn’t the sole perpetrator of the scam would be enough of a defence to clear him of charges completely. Trafigura’s lawyers argued otherwise, asking the judge to “stand up and smell the coffee.” Gupta’s lawyers proposed that Trafigura sue Oikonomou and Bhatia; Trafigura’s teams argued that insinuating Gupta would have “got off scot-free” in this eventuality was “absurd.”

Attribution battles, echoes of past commodities fraud

Gupta’s lawyers discussed Bank of India v Morris on the point of attribution. In 2005, the Court of Appeal found that a senior employee’s “blind-eye knowledge” of sham transactions should be attributed to the company, despite one employee, Mr Samant, breaching his duty. Bank of India (BoI) was ultimately held liable for participating in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International’s (BCCI) fraudulent trading scheme. 

This is because, as the case followed, BoI was not the target of fraud, and Mr Samant was allegedly acting in what he believed to be BoI’s best interests. In the current case, Oikonomou and Bhatia are to benefit Trafigura – not themselves.

On the opposition, Trafigura has argued that this case is “essentially the same” as another significant commodities fraud case of the century: OMV Petrom SA (“Petrom”) v. Glencore International AG (“Glencore). Petrom sued Glencore in the English courts after discovering that Glencore had supplied bespoke blends of cheaper crude oil, falsely documented as contracted grades, to Petrom’s predecessors in the 1990s, constituting deceit. 

At trial, the High Court found Glencore liable and awarded Petrom substantial damages of around $40 million plus interest and costs, rejecting an argument that Petrom’s agent, Petex, had been aware of Glencore’s fraud. The primary argument by Gupta’s lawyers is that there was no discernible benefit to any of Petrom, Petex, or Glencore for conspiring; conversely, the benefits for Oikonomou and Bhatia to conduct dealings on this basis were clear.

That too, the benefit – interest payments from Citibank for as long as the cargo remained, unrepurchased, at sea – would only be an advantage if all parties acted in accordance with shared knowledge.

The red flags were there, from transit times to shipping documents

A point of contention for the trial was the email sent by Thibaut Barthelme, Trafigura’s then-head of the refined metals trade finance team, to his department bosses in September 2020, flagging Gupta’s companies’ “strange business strategies”, such as long transit times and connections between buyer and seller in the transactions. In mid-2022, before the fraud was uncovered, emails seen by the court refer to Trafigura management “learn[ing] about this business, they did not like it at all”. 

Gupta’s lawyers used this to argue that some at Trafigura had known about the fraud and wilfully threw people off the scent to continue perpetuating it. However, Trafigura’s team pointed out that a discussion about potential issues did not imply knowledge of the fraud. Citibank, Trafigura’s lender for these transactions, had been aware of the ‘red flags’ and remained happy to finance the trades.

The HS codes on the Bills of Lading for the transactions were also codes for nickel alloy, a less pure form of nickel; that Trafigura and Citibank failed to catch this discrepancy “indicated that the operations team had not followed protocol,” Gupta told the court. Trafigura said this was due to an oversight, while Gupta alleged it was because some Trafigura traders were involved in the fraud. 

Trafigura also argued that Gupta had been falsifying bills of lading (BLs), duplicating documents to sell the same cargo to two customers; Gupta denies knowledge of this.

Gupta’s legal team drama

Gupta’s turbulent business dealings were a focus of the trial, and his relationship with his legal team was no different. Gupta’s original legal team, Mishcon De Reya, told a London court in March 2024 that Gupta had run out of funds to pay for legal fees, an issue that Trafigura’s lawyers told the court had caused frequent delays.

In June 2024, Gupta changed legal teams, choosing to be represented by Preston Turnbull. A year later, in August 2025, Preston Turnbull told courts that they would fail to appear on the next day of a hearing concerning the use of documents in a separate case due to a lack of funds. 

Gupta then changed teams again, opting to be represented by Larson LLP; however, a week before the start of the trial, on 7 November, Larson said in a court filing that it had stopped representing Gupta. The relationship resumed on 11 November, just a few days before the start of the trial, a Larson lawyer confirmed. 

–

That fraud of such magnitude could go on for so long, unnoticed by the world’s biggest commodities trader and a global banking giant, may to rattle trust in the trade finance industry for a while.

The case has drawn attention to the commodity industry’s growing role as a trade financier, filling the gap left by banks pulling out as a result of Basel III, which a UNCTAD report released last week highlighted as one of the most important recent developments in global trade.

The verdict is expected to be released in late January.