Rasmala Trade Finance Fund has failed in its latest attempt to recover millions of dollars from Trafigura, which it said was unjustly enriched by a fraud scheme carried out by an Indian coal trader.
The fund, which was managed by Rasmala Investment Bank before entering voluntary liquidation last year, filed a US$22mn lawsuit against Trafigura in London’s High Court in 2021. The amount claimed has since been reduced to US$11mn.
Rasmala said it had been duped into providing financing facilities to Farlin Energy & Commodities for what it thought were genuine trades, but were actually used to pay off pre-existing debts to Trafigura. Farlin was accused of providing forged documents to both Rasmala and Trafigura to execute the scheme.
The court ruled against Rasmala in June 2025, finding the payments received by Trafigura led to Trafigura continuing to trade with Farlin – ultimately resulting in losses to the trader of around US$7.5mn – and so did not result in unjust enrichment.
Claims that Trafigura was involved in the arrangement were largely abandoned by Rasmala during the trial.
The fund appealed last year’s judgment, but a panel of three Court of Appeal judges ruled today that the initial decision should stand.
Lord Justice Nugee said he “remain[s] of the view that this is a relatively simple case” whereby Trafigura – as the recipient of funds – acted “in good faith” on the basis they were valid.
“The judge was entirely right to conclude that it would be inequitable for Trafigura to have to make any repayment to Rasmala,” he said the judgment.
As part of its appeal, Rasmala argued Trafigura should have contacted Rasmala directly to check that the funds were being used properly.
But the court found Trafigura “did not simply keep the money and decide for itself what to do with it”.
It asked Farlin about the payments, resulting in Farlin providing a letter seemingly from Rasmala confirming it had made the payments on its behalf – and though the letter had been doctored by Farlin, Trafigura had no reason to suspect the scheme was fraudulent.
Lord Justice Nugee added that “Rasmala too could have contacted Trafigura directly and told it what it was making the payments for”, but did not do so.
The Court of Appeal ruling also noted that if Trafigura had been required to repay US$11mn to Rasmala, it would be out of pocket by as much as US$18.5mn, as a result of its other losses to Farlin.
This would leave it in a worse position than if the Rasmala payments had never been made.
Trafigura declined to comment when contacted by GTR. Neither Rasmala Investment Bank nor the fund’s liquidator responded to requests for comment.
The liquidation of the Rasmala Trade Finance Fund followed a court battle with Dubai Islamic Bank (DIB), which owned around two-thirds of its shares.
Launched in 2014, the fund focused on trade finance assets in the UAE, mainly in the energy, agri commodities and metals sectors.
DIB said in a petition filed in 2024 it had lost confidence in the fund’s management, and had “serious concerns” over its solvency, after net losses of US$34.2mn and US$66.4mn in 2021 and 2020 respectively.
Rasmala Investment Bank said in May last year the decision to pursue voluntary liquidation “represents a constructive resolution that puts independent oversight and stakeholder interests first”.
Rasmala was also ordered to repay over US$4mn to Saudi investors in July last year, after a Dubai court found it misrepresented the fund’s financial health.
