--- title: "Twinwin: lending allegations and liquidation" language: en canonical: https://osint.v3rta.com/dossiers/market-financial-solutions/topics/twinwin-proceedings/ as_of: 2026-10-09 keywords: ["Market Financial Solutions","MFS","Paresh Raja","Pratibha Raja","mortgage servicing","bridging finance","securitisation","administration","Twinwin","Cronus Finance","Galaktikos","Trident Funding"] --- # Twinwin: lending allegations and liquidation **Question.** What did the Twinwin proceedings decide, and what remained contested? **Answer.** A March 2026 without-notice judgment appointed provisional liquidators on evidence of asset-dissipation risk. Twinwin later entered compulsory liquidation; the interim judgment did not finally determine the allegations. ## Registered ownership and alleged operation - Analysis: Companies House identified Khemanand Hurhangee as Twinwin’s person with significant control and director. Tapankumar Patel was a former director. The applicants in the provisional liquidation matter alleged that Raja and Zeeshan Khan directed transactions in practice. The registered ownership and the alleged operational control are separate propositions. [s-d16] [s-d36] [s-d137] [s-d113] - Qualification: Registered control by Hurhangee and allegations of Raja’s practical control are different propositions; the PSC entry does not resolve the allegations. The hearing was private and without notice. A good arguable case supporting interim liquidators is not a final adjudication of fraud, knowing receipt or dishonest assistance. The judgment accepted a good arguable case on a without-notice interim application. It did not finally determine Raja’s or Khan’s responsibility or Twinwin’s liability. - Response: Twinwin did not have notice of the provisional-liquidator application; the order provided liberty to apply and a return date to address the court. - Outcome: Provisional liquidators were appointed; the later register records compulsory winding up on 18 June 2026. - Analysis: The court described London Bridging’s July 2025 payment of £3,234,106 to Twinwin for three properties and a January 2026 repayment of £608,786 sent to Twinwin. The applicants said Twinwin relended at higher rates and that receipts did not reach the original funding company. These accounts were considered for interim protection, without notice to Twinwin. [s-d137] [s-d113] - Qualification: The judgment accepted a good arguable case on a without-notice interim application. It did not finally determine Raja’s or Khan’s responsibility or Twinwin’s liability. The hearing was private and without notice. A good arguable case supporting interim liquidators is not a final adjudication of fraud, knowing receipt or dishonest assistance. - Response: Twinwin did not have notice of the provisional-liquidator application; the order provided liberty to apply and a return date to address the court. - Outcome: Provisional liquidators were appointed; the later register records compulsory winding up on 18 June 2026. ## The sequence and limits of the decision - Analysis: London Bridging’s difficulties preceded the Twinwin application: receivers were appointed over a collection account in February and an administration order followed on 2 March 2026. The 6 March judgment appointed provisional liquidators for Twinwin after a winding-up petition had been presented. The company register records compulsory liquidation beginning on 18 June 2026. [s-d137] [s-d113] - Qualification: The procedural chronology does not determine liability for the allegations; the judgment described Raja’s departure to Dubai as apparent, not independently established residence. The hearing was private and without notice. A good arguable case supporting interim liquidators is not a final adjudication of fraud, knowing receipt or dishonest assistance. The later winding-up entry is a procedural outcome; it does not by itself prove the substantive allegations underlying the earlier application. - Analysis: Raja’s spokesperson rejected the characterisation of Twinwin and denied wrongdoing. Media accounts later alleged that Hurhangee held Twinwin for Raja, but that account does not displace the registered PSC entry or turn the provisional judgment into a final finding of fraud. [s-d17] [s-d217] [s-d183] [s-d16] - Qualification: The retained media account reports allegations and a judicial observation. The separately retained March judgment supplies its own limits: interim protection in a without-notice proceeding, rather than final determination of the alleged conduct. This is an attributed account in the retained reporting, with the stated procedural and source limits; it is not a determination of the underlying contested allegation. - Response: Raja’s spokesperson rejected the characterization of Twinwin and denied wrongdoing. NatWest said it could not comment on customers, described its controls and cooperation with authorities; the report says NatWest had no direct credit exposure to MFS or related entities. Raja denies wrongdoing; reported defence says associated property holdings were for the business’s ultimate benefit. The registry identifies Hurhangee as shareholder, which does not itself confirm the reported trust. ## Sources - [s-d16] Companies House: Twinwin Limited — persons with significant control, Companies House - [s-d36] Companies House: Twinwin Limited — officers, Companies House - [s-d137] London Bridging and CLYL SV v Twinwin — [2026] EWHC 1053 (Ch), High Court of Justice / The National Archives - [s-d113] Companies House: Twinwin Limited — insolvency record, Companies House - [s-d17] Media source · s-d17 - [s-d217] Media source · s-d217 - [s-d183] Media source · s-d183