Services About Insights Newsletters Contact
An RMAACA Publication

Red Flags
& Footnotes

One fraud case a week. How the number moved, and why it was tempting. For anyone who reads financial statements and wants to read them better.

By Mahesh Ramanujam, FCA, DISA(ICAI)  ·  Weekly, every Monday

Subscribe on LinkedIn
18
Editions Published
Weekly
Cadence
~12 min
Average Read
SEC · SEBI
Primary Sources

What this is

Most weeks, a regulator somewhere charges a company with accounting fraud — and the coverage stops at "the SEC charged X." The interesting part rarely gets told: how the number moved, and why it was tempting.

That's the gap Red Flags & Footnotes is built for. One reported case per edition, read the way a chartered accountant reads it — mechanism and incentive, not headline.

Who it's for

If you work with financial statements — as an investor, founder, CFO, finance team member, or fellow professional — this is written for you. No motivational content. No jargon for jargon's sake.

Investors Founders CFOs & Finance Teams Auditors CA Professionals
Also From R. Mahesh & Associates
Beyond the Financial Statements, Beyond the Scoreboard and World's Oldest Companies
Three companion series — one company's numbers each fortnight, what the record book leaves out, and the businesses that lasted centuries.
See all newsletters
All Editions
Latest Edition
18
₹31.46 cr
Enforcement Design & Shareholder Protection

₹31.46 Crore Diverted. Why Was the Company Not Fined?

SEBI's final order against Tarapur Transformers finds ₹31.46 crore diverted to connected entities, restrains the company and its promoter-director, and imposes ₹32 lakh in penalties on individuals. It declines to fine the company, because shareholders would bear it. It also contains no direction to bring the money back.

12 October 2026 12 min read Tarapur Transformers · SEBI Final Order · August 2026
Read Edition 18

Previous editions

17
Edition 17 · 28 Sep 2026
₹541 Crore of Revenue. How Much Was Real?
SEBI's interim ex-parte order against Kore Digital identifies about ₹541.3 crore of prima facie financial-statement misstatement — roughly 73% of FY25–FY26 consolidated revenue — and orders a forensic audit. Interim findings, not a final adjudication.
16
Edition 16 · 16 Sep 2026
Who Really Controls the Business?
India's SFIO has recommended a detailed investigation into Xiaomi's Indian operations — beneficial ownership, fund movements, and possible de facto control over sellers presented as arm's length. A proposed investigation, not a finding of wrongdoing.
15
Edition 15 · 7 Sep 2026
₹40 Crore Raised. ₹128 Crore Disgorged.
SEBI's final order finds misleading disclosures, fictitious sales and purchases, and diversion of IPO and rights-issue proceeds at Varanium Cloud. Its promoter was ordered to disgorge ₹128.77 crore.
14
Edition 14 · 31 Aug 2026
₹15.15 Lakh Crore. 99.80% Questioned.
SEBI's interim order finds 99.80% of the revenue Rajesh Exports attributed to its subsidiaries could not be substantiated. A forensic auditor could fully verify just 2.03% of a sampled purchase ledger.
13
Edition 13 · 24 Aug 2026
₹1,463 Crore Ceiling. ₹23 Crore History.
Ester Industries' shareholders approved an RPT ceiling with its own joint venture almost 63 times the disclosed three-year history. The guarantee inside it — 85% of the ceiling — is stated at two different figures in the same filing.
12
Edition 12 · 17 Aug 2026
The ₹450 Crore Wasn't the Story.
Shareholders approved a ₹450 crore RPT ceiling between LMW and Lakshmi Electrical Control Systems. What actually moved was ₹167.28 crore — roughly 70% of the smaller company's entire annual revenue.
11
Edition 11 · 11 Aug 2026
The company owned the land. Someone else needed the loan.
SEBI barred Zee Entertainment's Subhash Chandra and Punit Goenka for a year over the unauthorised pledge of the company's Hyderabad land to secure ₹726 crore of promoter-linked loans.
10
Edition 10 · 04 Aug 2026
The Numbers Reconciled. Until They Didn't.
Nearly ₹2,000 crore of adverse accounting impact at IndusInd Bank. Internal derivative trades, notional profits, and two senior resignations — over a control question far simpler than the accounting that hid it.
09
Edition 09 · 28 Jul 2026
The Loan Was for EVs. The Money Had Other Plans.
A public company borrowed ₹978 crore to buy electric vehicles. Regulators say a large part of it bought something else entirely — including a luxury apartment.
08
Edition 08 · 21 Jul 2026
The Money Took a Detour. Should the Board Have Asked Why?
A transaction can be perfectly documented. The harder question is whether it had a genuine business purpose — inside the SEBI proceedings against Reliance Infrastructure.
07
Edition 07 · 14 Jul 2026
Not History. A Warning.
Arthur Andersen was one of the world's most respected audit firms — 85,000 people, decades of reputation. Then trust cracked, and it disappeared in months.
06
Edition 06 · 07 Jul 2026
IL&FS: The evergreen loans and the clean opinion
A AAA-rated lender owing ₹91,000 crore defaulted almost overnight. The IFIN book, the loans that round-tripped so bad debt never surfaced, and the audit signature that sat on top of it.
05
Edition 05 · 30 Jun 2026
Who audits the auditors?
An interlude. Four editions asked how nobody saw the fraud; this one turns to the people whose job was to catch it — across Enron, Satyam, Wirecard, Carillion and Evergrande, and the tangle over who is even allowed to discipline an auditor.
04
Edition 04 · 23 Jun 2026
The journal entry that disappeared ₹1,035 crore
Rajesh Exports reported consolidated revenue rivalling Reliance while its standalone Indian business earned a fraction of it. SEBI's forensic auditor asked to see the journal — it was never handed over.
03
Edition 03 · 16 Jun 2026
The bonus that built the fraud
ADM, Part II. How a compensation plan that tied bonuses to one segment's growth target made manipulation rational — and the governance failures that let it run unchallenged for four years.
02
Edition 02 · 09 Jun 2026
The invisible hand in your own pocket
How ADM allegedly moved operating profit between divisions through retroactive intersegment rebates — without ever touching the consolidated P&L.
01
Edition 01 · 02 Jun 2026
The quarter that turned positive without anyone selling more
How a single non-GAAP definition change allegedly turned a quarterly loss into a "first-ever profit" — no extra revenue, just a redefinition.

One case. Every Monday.

Subscribe on LinkedIn and get each edition delivered to your inbox. Free, forever.

Subscribe on LinkedIn →