Legal battles tied to the dramatic collapse of NMC Healthcare — once the UAE’s largest private hospital operator — have taken a new turn with a recent court decision allowing deeper scrutiny of bank records in the case involving its founder, Bavaguthu Raghuram (B.R.) Shetty.
Background: The NMC Collapse
NMC Healthcare fell into crisis after it revealed in 2020 that it had hidden more than $4 billion in debt — far beyond what investors and lenders knew. The disclosure prompted the company to enter administration and triggered widespread lawsuits and investigations in the UAE, the UK, India and elsewhere.
Shetty, once a billionaire entrepreneur, has denied personal wrongdoing and claims that former executives misled him or committed fraud without his knowledge. Meanwhile, creditors and administrators are fighting to recover funds and determine who was responsible for the massive debt.
Why Bank Records Matter
At the centre of the latest legal development is the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Court’s decision to allow administrators of NMC to request internal bank records from Bank of Baroda, a lender involved in financing NMC.
Traditionally, internal bank documents — especially Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs) and compliance files — are protected by strict confidentiality under anti-money-laundering (AML) laws. These rules are meant to protect investigations and prevent banks from “tipping off” customers when something seems unusual.
However, recent changes in UAE AML law (Federal Decree-Law No. 10 of 2025) now give courts more discretion to allow disclosure of such information in civil cases if it’s essential to resolving disputes — including insolvency proceedings like NMC’s.
What the Court Has Allowed — and Why It Matters
The ADGM judge ruled that:
Bank administrators can apply for specific internal records from Bank of Baroda to help understand how money flowed through NMC’s accounts and whether the bank identified anything unusual.
Documents that show how transactions were handled — including whether suspicious activity was ever flagged or investigated — could be “of considerable assistance” in determining responsibility for losses.
Even records showing that no suspicious transaction reports were filed might help clarify the bank’s role and actions.
This marks an important shift because it breaks through the typical confidentiality shield that banks have relied on — making internal bank records a potentially powerful source of evidence.
How This Fits the Larger Legal Fight
The dispute over bank records is just one of many legal battles in the wider NMC saga:
In other courts, Shetty has been ordered to pay millions over guarantees for loans that the court found he had signed despite his denials.
Creditors in the UAE and abroad continue to pursue claims against Shetty and former executives to recover losses from the collapse.
By gaining access to detailed bank records, administrators hope to build a clearer picture of how funds were moved, who knew what and when, and whether any banking controls failed to detect suspicious activity — all crucial to sorting out liability and possibly recovering assets.
What This Does — and Doesn’t — Mean
It’s important to note that the court’s decision does not automatically release any documents — it simply allows administrators to ask for them. Each request still needs approval, and banks can challenge specific disclosures if they believe they are irrelevant or legally protected.
Still, the ruling highlights a broader trend in the UAE’s legal system: regulators and courts are willing to pierce traditional banking secrecy when necessary to resolve major insolvency and fraud disputes fairly and transparently.