Anubhav sold 'guaranteed' teak returns and defrauded depositors of nearly ₹400 crore
Anubhav Plantations · Plantation schemes (private)
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Unit economics & burn
Would have compared promised returns with tree growth.
Can mislead when: Cost allocation is a judgement call. Kubr shows its assumptions and lets the user change them.
Counterparty existence
Would have visited plantations.
Can mislead when: Real companies can be used as pass-throughs. Existence does not prove a real trade, so C6 and C7 still apply.
End-use tracing of funds
Would have traced deposits.
Can mislead when: Kubr sees only the company's own accounts. Once money reaches a third party's bank, Kubr can flag the payee but cannot see the next hop without that party's consent.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Financial diligence
Offered in India- C4 Would have visited plantations.
- C9 Would have compared promised returns with tree growth.
Valuation context
Offered in India- C4 Would have visited plantations.
- C9 Would have compared promised returns with tree growth.
Proceeds tracer
Offered in India- C4 Would have visited plantations.
- C6 Would have traced deposits.
Verified Snapshot
Offered in India- C4 Would have visited plantations.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.