A 10-week civil fraud trial was listed to open in the Commercial Court in London on 12 October 2026, and the claimants opened their case that day, according to Law360 as reported by Billionaires.Africa. The claimants are companies of the Gemini group, which press reports link to the family office of Egypt’s Sawiris family. They are suing New Zealand businessman Eric Watson and others over Voltaire, a currency trading business that Gemini funded between 2014 and 2019.
At its heart is a question every family office should ask before it invests: who really controls this company? The claimants say the answer they were given was wrong. The court has not ruled. Every allegation below is the claimants’ case, not a finding.
The case in brief
The case is Voltaire Capital Holdings Ltd & Others v Eric Watson & Others, claim number CL-2022-000699, in the Commercial Court, part of the High Court of England and Wales. There are five claimants, including Gemini Investment Holding, and 14 named defendants, people and companies.
According to the claimants’ case as summarised by the court in April 2026, Gemini put about $132 million into the Voltaire business and lost about $101 million. The judge described the proceedings as “US$100 million civil fraud claims”. Law360 put the amount now claimed at about $150 million, Billionaires.Africa reported; the reason for the higher figure was not given.
Billionaires.Africa, citing Law360, links Gemini to the branch of Naguib Sawiris. The April 2026 judgment, describing one defendant’s proposed counterclaim, also refers to “Naguib Sawiris of Gemini”.
What the claimants say went wrong
The claimants say they believed Voltaire was a legitimate business run mainly by Krishan Rattan, one of its founders. Their case, as the court summarised it, has four parts:
- Hidden control. They allege that Watson had undisclosed ownership and control of Voltaire, and that entities were structured to obscure his interest.
- Related-party trading. They allege that Voltaire traded mainly, on uneconomic terms, with two counterparties presented as independent, in which some defendants had interests.
- Forecasts. They allege that Gemini was induced to invest more on forecasts with “no basis in reality”.
- Payments. They allege that Voltaire made payments for the benefit of the defendants and their associates.
The claims include fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy.
What do the defendants say? The April judgment refers to defences filed in 2023, but most of their content is not public. It notes that one defendant, William Gibson, relied on part of his defence to deny taking part in the alleged conspiracy. We found no public response from Eric Watson.
Where the case stands
In August 2026 the claimants dropped their claims against Krishan Rattan. According to a statement from his current firm, Terra-Invest, a notice of discontinuance was filed on 6 August after a resolution between the parties. The terms have not been disclosed. In April 2026, Mr Justice Bryan refused Gibson’s late request to add counterclaims; that ruling made no finding on the fraud claims.
Legal owner, beneficial owner
The case turns on a distinction every family should know. The legal owner is the name on the share register. The beneficial owner is the person who really enjoys the benefit and often takes the decisions. The two can differ for legitimate reasons: a trust, a nominee, a holding company. (We explain these building blocks in Holding Structures in Plain English.)
Voltaire shows how layered this can get. According to the court’s summary, before a 2016 restructuring Gemini held 25% of the original Voltaire company, and other shares were held by a corporate trustee of a trust. A share register shows the trustee, not the people behind the trust. The claimants say layering of this kind hid Watson’s interest. The defendants will give their side at trial.
Background checks have a blind spot here. In a separate case in 2018, a High Court judge in London found that Watson had obtained an investment from fellow New Zealander Sir Owen Glenn by deceit, 1News reported at the time. But a search on a person helps only if you know he is involved. The claimants’ point is that they did not.
How a family office checks who is really in charge
A family office that invests directly can ask for far more than a fund investor gets:
- Trace ownership to people. Follow every company and trust up the chain until you reach individuals. Ask for written confirmation of the beneficial owners, backed by a warranty in the investment documents.
- Check the counterparties. Ask who the main customers, suppliers and trading partners are, and whether any insider has an interest in them. Related-party deals should be disclosed and approved.
- Test the forecasts. Compare each new funding request with what happened after the last one.
- Keep the right to look. A board seat or observer, audited accounts and the right to inspect records make concealment harder.
- Search the people, everywhere. Court records, press and regulators’ lists in every country where they have worked.
- Repeat the checks. Ownership and control can change after you invest.
Repeated cheques into one private company are where these checks matter most. It is the concentration and governance risk we described in five mistakes in managing family wealth.
A fair caveat
This is a civil case, and none of the allegations has been tested at trial. The defendants may have answers that are not yet public, and the court may accept some claims and reject others. The amounts are the claimants’ figures. Careful checks reduce risk but cannot remove it.
Five lessons to take away
- Ask who controls, not only who owns. The share register is the start of the answer, not the end.
- Trace every layer to a person. Trusts and nominees are legal, but you need to know who stands behind them.
- Watch the related parties. Trading partners linked to insiders can move value out quietly.
- Treat each new cheque as a new investment. Check the old forecasts before funding the new ones.
- Keep the right to look. Information rights and audits cost far less than a trial.
Questions to bring to your advisors
For each private company we fund, can we name every person who ultimately owns or controls it, and how did we confirm it? Which of its counterparties are linked to insiders? What warranties and information rights do our documents give us, and when did we last re-check them? These are questions to bring to your advisors, not advice.