Doomscroll News

Anatomy of a $500 Million Deception: Deconstructing the Carriox Capital Asset-Based Lending Fraud

An editorial illustration of a bank vault being unlocked by a key labeled with a fake email domain, symbolizing a cybersecurity breach.

Written by

David Gross

in

Executive Overview

This report analyzes a $500+ million asset-based lending fraud. The scheme allegedly targeted HPS Investment Partners (BlackRock) and BNP Paribas.1 It was reportedly perpetrated by Bankim Brahmbhatt’s Bankai Group.

The fraud involved fabricated telecommunications receivables. These were “verified” for over two years using simple, low-cost typosquatted email domains.3

The investigation concludes this event represents a catastrophic failure of lender and third-party auditor due diligence. This failure exposed a “contagion of method”: a proven, replicable playbook for defeating sophisticated financial controls.2

Key recommendations focus on the immediate integration of technical cybersecurity checks into all financial due diligence.

I. Executive Assessment: Deconstruction of the Carriox Capital Fraud

A. Synopsis of the Event

This report deconstructs an alleged $500+ million fraud. The scheme targeted a consortium of sophisticated global lenders. The primary targets were BlackRock’s private-credit arm, HPS Investment Partners, and its co-financing partner, BNP Paribas.1

The scheme was allegedly orchestrated by Indian-origin entrepreneur Bankim Brahmbhatt, founder of the Bankai Group. It was centered on a high-value asset-based lending facility secured against fabricated accounts receivable.1

B. The Core Mechanics

The fraud was allegedly executed by pledging fictitious invoices and contracts from major international telecommunications carriers.5 This deception was successfully maintained for at least two years.2

Its success relied on a low-cost, low-complexity technical vector. This vector was the use of “typosquatted” email domains to defeat the lenders’ verification processes. For example, fraudulent confirmations were sent from $belgacomics.com$ to impersonate the legitimate carrier domain $bics.com$.3

C. The Financial Impact

The immediate, known financial fallout is substantial. In its Q3 2025 results, BNP Paribas disclosed a provision (cost of risk) of €190 million (approximately $220 million). This was explicitly linked to the “fraud case”.6 The total lender exposure is alleged to exceed $500 million.1

This loss is starkly confirmed by U.S. bankruptcy filings from the borrower’s financing vehicles, primarily Carriox Capital II, LLC.

These filings reveal a catastrophic chasm between debt and assets.

  • Stated liabilities are in the range of $500,000,001 to $1 billion.
  • Stated assets are listed at $0 to $50,000.7

This ratio confirms the pledged collateral was almost entirely illusory.

D. Key Systemic Failures (The “Why”)

This event is not merely a story of a clever fraudster. It is a story of profound and repeated systemic failures by financial gatekeepers.

  1. Lender Due Diligence Failure: Both HPS and BNP Paribas failed to detect basic technical red flags, despite their institutional sophistication. These red flags (such as the fake domains) were discoverable via simple, public “whois” records.3
  2. Third-Party Auditor Failure: Third-party audit firms (identified as Deloitte and CBIZ) were reportedly engaged by HPS. They were hired to perform initial and annual asset checks.2 These auditors apparently “verified” and signed off on the non-existent collateral for years.
  3. Market-Wide Implications: This case exposes a critical vulnerability in the high-yield private credit sector. The pursuit of yield appears to have compromised underwriting standards. BNP’s Chief Financial Officer, explaining the loss, pointed to “new entries” with “low collateralisation”.6 This admission suggests the deal was poorly structured and high-risk from the outset. This was true even if the collateral had been real.

E. The Contagion of Method

Initial concerns of traditional banking “contagion” (interbank lending risk) appear unfounded. The real contagion this case exposes is the contagion of method.

This fraud provides a public, proven playbook. It shows how to defeat the due diligence of the world’s most sophisticated lenders (BlackRock, BNP) and auditors (Deloitte). This defeat was accomplished using low-cost, low-complexity technical tricks.3

Lenders and auditors failed to perform simple, out-of-band verification. For example, they did not call the public headquarters switchboard of BICS to verify the accounts payable contact.

This failure suggests their entire verification process is automated, email-based, and built on a weak foundation of trust.

If this is the standard for a $500 million facility, this vulnerability is not isolated. It is likely present across billions of dollars in similar asset-based loans industry-wide.

The “contagion” is this latent, undiscovered risk: the risk that other “performing” loans in lender portfolios are, in fact, identical frauds awaiting discovery.

For example, a fraudster could replicate this playbook in the manufacturing or construction industry.

  1. They could register a typosquatted domain to impersonate a known, trusted subcontractor.
  2. They could then submit a fake multi-million dollar invoice for raw materials or heavy machinery.
  3. This invoice would pass a simple email-only verification, allowing the fraudster to divert the payment.

The ‘contagion’ is this latent, undiscovered risk. It is the risk that other ‘performing’ loans in any industry’s portfolio are, in fact, identical frauds awaiting discovery.

F. Key Recommendations (Actionable Insights)

  1. Mandate Out-of-Band (OOB) Verification: Immediately prohibit email-only confirmation for asset-based lending. All counterparty contacts must be independently sourced and verified via public channels (e.g., main switchboards, public regulatory filings).
  2. Integrate Technical Diligence into Financial Diligence: Simple technical checks must become a mandatory part of the underwriting checklist.
    • Specific Example (WHOIS): A whois lookup on a new counterparty’s domain. Red flags include:
      • A very recent creation date.
      • Privacy-protected registration.
      • A registrar like GoDaddy for a major corporation (which typically uses a corporate registrar).
      • A check on $belgacomics.com$ would have revealed it was not registered to BICS.
    • Specific Example (Email Header): A basic email header analysis.9 Red flags include:
      • Received-SPF “fail” results.9
      • A Return-Path or originating IP address that does not trace back to the alleged sender’s known corporate infrastructure.9
  3. Re-Audit High-Risk Portfolios: All “performing” loans sharing this deal’s risk profile should be flagged for immediate, independent re-verification. This profile includes receivables-financing, high-yield, “low collateralisation,” or reliance on non-public counterparties.12
  4. Audit the Auditors: Lenders must “trust but verify” their third-party audit partners. This includes reviewing their specific verification methodologies (i.e., how they check assets). It is not enough to simply accept a finalized audit report.

Table 1: Timeline of Fraud Discovery and Collapse (2020-2025)

Date (Year/Month)EventSignificanceSource(s)
Sep 2020HPS Investment Partners begins lending to Brahmbhatt-affiliated firms.Establishes the high-value lending relationship.1
2024HPS exposure to the firms increases to approximately $430 million.Demonstrates ongoing lender confidence and a failure to detect the long-running fraud.
Early 2025BlackRock completes its acquisition of HPS Investment Partners.BlackRock inherits the $179B HPS portfolio, including this undiscovered, high-risk loan.
July 2025An HPS employee notices “irregularities” in customer email addresses.The “curious employee” discovers the fraud, not a formal audit or risk system.
July 2025New York offices of Brahmbhatt’s companies are found “closed and vacant.”Physical confirmation of the bust-out; the perpetrators have fled.
August 2025Lenders’ collateral agent (Alter Domus) files a civil lawsuit in NY Supreme Court.The lenders’ first legal strike, alleging fabricated receivables.
Aug 12, 2025BTI, Bridgevoice, and Bankim Brahmbhatt (personally) file for Chapter 11.A defensive legal maneuver to halt the civil suit via an “automatic stay.”
Oct 20, 2025Financing SPVs (Carriox Capital II, BB Capital SPV) file for Chapter 11.Forced bankruptcy of the “empty” shell companies, revealing the asset-liability chasm.
Oct 28, 2025BNP Paribas discloses a €190 million provision in its Q3 2025 results.The first public financial admission of the loss by a co-lending bank.

II. The Borrower Group: Profile of Bankim Brahmbhatt and the Bankai Network

A. Principal Profile: Bankim Brahmbhatt

  1. Public Persona and BackgroundBankim Brahmbhatt is the central figure and is identified as Gujarat-born. He is described as the owner, President, and CEO of the Bankai Group, which includes the operating companies Broadband Telecom and Bridgevoice.Brahmbhatt was not an unknown entity. He was an established industry figure. He even featured in Capacity’s 2023 “Power 100” list, a recognition of top leaders in the telecommunications industry.He presented himself as a telecom engineer by training. He claimed to have begun his entrepreneurial career in India in 1989 by manufacturing push-button telephones, later expanding into telecom billing and digital finance.
  2. Current Status and “Flight” IndicatorsFollowing the fraud’s discovery in July 2025, HPS informed its clients that it believes Brahmbhatt is currently in India. His attorney has publicly disputed the fraud allegations.Brahmbhatt’s actions, however, are classic post-fraud indicators.
    • His LinkedIn profile has been deleted or deactivated.
    • The New York offices of his companies were found “closed and vacant” by investigators in July 2025.
    • He filed for personal bankruptcy on August 12, 2025, concurrently with his companies.

B. The Operating Companies: Broadband Telecom, Inc. & Bridgevoice, Inc.

  1. Business Model: These two entities were the “legitimate” operational arms of the Bankai Group. They operated as real wholesale telecommunications carriers. They specialized in international voice termination, data traffic, and IP interconnects. Broadband Telecom, Inc. was incorporated in New York as far back as 2005.
  2. Legal Status: Both companies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Eastern District of New York on August 12, 2025.
  3. The “Legitimacy Cloak”The fraud’s multi-year success depended entirely on the perceived legitimacy of these operating companies.Bankai Group was a “globally recognized” entity in the ICT sector. It regularly attended major industry conferences. Public records show Bankai Group and Bridgevoice listed as attendees at the same conferences as BICS , one of the very companies Brahmbhatt’s firms were allegedly impersonating.This is a crucial distinction from a simple “ghost company” fraud. Brahmbhatt did not invent a fake business. He allegedly weaponized his legitimate, established position within the telecom industry.Lenders and auditors were not underwriting a phantom. They were underwriting a known industry player. This legitimacy made the forged contracts 4 and fabricated invoices plausible.The deception was not “we have a new contract with BICS.” It was the far more subtle and effective: “here is another $20 million invoice against our existing BICS carrier-interconnect agreement.”

C. The Financing Entities: Carriox Capital II, LLC & BB Capital SPV, LLC

  1. Role as Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs): These entities were created as the financing vehicles, or SPVs, to borrow from HPS and BNP Paribas. Carriox Capital II, LLC, was marketed to the industry as a factoring company. It claimed to provide “account receivable financing to carriers, cell tower companies, [and] telecom operators”.
  2. Alleged Fund Diversion: The lenders’ complaint explicitly alleges that the hundreds of millions in loan proceeds were not used for operations. Instead, they were diverted offshore to related entities, including Bankai International Pvt. Ltd. (Mauritius) and Bankai Infotech Ltd. (India).
  3. Legal Status and Strategic BankruptcyThese two SPVs filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on October 20, 2025. This was significantly more than two months after the operating companies and Brahmbhatt himself.This staggered timeline is not an accident. It is a clear legal strategy:
    1. Step 1 (July 2025): HPS discovered the fraud.
    2. Step 2 (August 2025): The lenders’ agent, Alter Domus, filed a civil lawsuit in New York Supreme Court to seize assets.
    3. Step 3 (August 12, 2025): In direct response to the civil suit, Brahmbhatt placed the operating companies (BTI, Bridgevoice) and himself into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This move triggered an “automatic stay,” immediately halting the lenders’ state-level civil suit.
    4. Step 4 (Oct 20, 2025): The lenders’ primary target was Carriox, the SPV that held the (fake) collateral. After two months of legal pressure, the “empty” SPVs were also placed into Chapter 11. This allowed the court to appoint a creditors’ committee and formally unwind the structure.

III. The Lenders: Exposure, Internal Controls, and U.S. Operations

A. BNP Paribas (BNPP): The Co-Financing Partner

  1. Role and Financial Exposure: BNP Paribas was a direct co-financier of the loans alongside HPS. In its Q3 2025 earnings report on October 28, the bank publicly disclosed a €190 million ($220 million) “cost of risk” charge. Its CFO confirmed this was tied to a specific “fraud case” in its receivables financing book. Reporting suggests BNPP financed nearly half of the total loan exposure.
  2. BNPP’s Official Rationale (The “Firewall”)On the Q3 earnings call, BNPP CFO Lars Machenil made two critical statements to analysts :
    • He blamed the loss on “new entries” with “low collateralisation.”
    • He explicitly stated the incident “has nothing to do with the private credit environment.”
  3. Deconstructing the Official RationaleThese statements appear to be a deliberate attempt to quarantine the loss. They deflect from a systemic failure in underwriting.The claim that this “has nothing to do with the private credit environment” is transparently false.
    • It was a privately-negotiated loan.
    • It was co-funded with a private-credit giant (HPS).
    • It was secured by private assets (receivables).
    By definition, it is a private credit deal. This statement acts as a “firewall” for market analysts. It is designed to prevent this $220 million loss from being extrapolated across BNPP’s entire private credit co-financing portfolio.The admission of “low collateralisation” is even more damning. It means the deal was already high-risk and poorly structured, even if the collateral had been real.This demonstrates that in the hunt for yield, BNPP’s Global Markets unit 6 accepted a deal with an insufficient margin of safety.
  4. BNPP’s U.S. Footprint: Despite the 2023 sale of its U.S. retail arm (Bank of the West), BNPP maintains a massive U.S. presence. Its Corporate & Institutional Banking (CIB) division is headquartered at 787 Seventh Avenue in New York. It maintains major hubs in Jersey City, San Francisco, Chicago, and other key cities. This fraud originated from and directly impacts its core U.S. CIB operations.

B. HPS Investment Partners (A BlackRock Subsidiary)

  1. Role as Primary Lender: HPS was the lead lender in the consortium.1 It originated the relationship with Brahmbhatt’s firms in September 2020. HPS repeatedly increased its exposure, which grew to approximately $430 million by 2024.
  2. The BlackRock Acquisition Context: BlackRock acquired HPS and its $179 billion in assets under management in 2025. This acquisition closed just before this $500+ million fraud was uncovered in July 2025.
  3. The Inherited Liability and Due Diligence FailureThis fraud represents a catastrophic due diligence failure at two distinct levels:
    1. Level 1: HPS Failure (2020-2025): HPS originated, underwrote, and repeatedly upsized a facility worth over $430 million. This was based on collateral that was never properly or independently verified.
    2. Level 2: BlackRock Failure (2025): BlackRock’s own acquisition due diligence team audited and valued HPS’s $179 billion portfolio. They either failed to spot-check this massive, high-risk loan or their auditors did. This implies the fraud was ongoing and undiscovered while BlackRock was valuing HPS for acquisition.
    This fraud is a massive “undisclosed liability” that BlackRock inherited.The fact that an HPS employee, not a formal audit, spotted the anomaly proves something critical. It proves the formal “vetting” and risk-management processes at all levels were ineffective.

IV. Anatomy of the Fraud: A Technical and Procedural Analysis

A. The Core Mechanism: Receivables Financing (Asset-Based Lending)

  1. Definition: This is a common form of corporate financing. A company gets a loan or line of credit by pledging its accounts receivable (its outstanding, unpaid customer invoices) as collateral.
  2. The Point of Failure: The entire system relies on the lender’s ability to verify that the pledged receivables are real, collectible, and accurately valued. This verification process, which determines the “borrowing-base,” is the most critical control point. Lenders are supposed to “control cash receipts” and “carry out field audits” to ensure the collateral is sound.
  3. How the Fraud Defeated This ModelThe Brahmbhatt entities allegedly attacked this verification process at every level:
    • Fabricated the Collateral: They created fake invoices and forged contracts to create the illusion of a large, high-quality borrowing base.
    • Spoofed the Verification: They created look-alike email domains to “confirm” the fake invoices when contacted by the lenders or their auditors.
    • Faked the Cash Flow: They allegedly used new loan money to pay the interest on the old loans.2 This created the illusion of a healthy, performing asset. This is a classic feature of a Ponzi scheme.

B. The Technical Deception and Its Simplicity

The $500 million fraud was not a sophisticated hack. It was a simple Business Email Compromise (BEC) scheme.1

The perpetrators used “typosquatted” domains. These are fraudulent domains that mimic legitimate ones. They used them to fool the lenders’ and auditors’ email-based verification process.

The core failure was the “vetting” process itself. It was built on a flawed, closed-loop system that lacked basic, independent technical verification.

(For a detailed breakdown of the exact domains used, the impersonated carriers, and the specific diligence failures, see Appendix A: Technical Analysis of the Deception Vector.)

V. The Systemic Failure: Analysis of Due Diligence by Lenders and Auditors

A. Internal Failures and the “Curious Employee”

The fraud was not uncovered by HPS’s internal audit team, BlackRock’s acquisition team, or third-party auditors.

It was uncovered in July 2025. A single HPS employee “noticed irregularities” in customer email addresses provided by Brahmbhatt’s firms.

This employee’s curiosity triggered a look-back. That review revealed the “same irregularities” had been present for at least two years. This means the fraud was actively running and succeeding for most of the loan’s life.

B. The Third-Party Auditors: Deloitte and CBIZ

HPS reportedly engaged Deloitte for initial asset checks on the portfolio. It later engaged CBIZ for annual checks.2 These firms were engaged specifically to perform the asset verification that failed.

This level of due diligence is known as a “field audit” in asset-based lending. It typically involves:

  • Reviewing the borrowing base certificate.
  • Confirming the existence and eligibility of the pledged receivables.
  • Performing sample-based verification of the invoices.

This is the very process that was allegedly compromised by the spoofed emails.

These firms were paid to review and “check” collateral that, as bankruptcy filings now prove, did not exist. This exposes both audit firms to the significant threat of massive professional negligence lawsuits. Potential plaintiffs include HPS, BlackRock, and BNP Paribas (as a co-lender who may have relied on HPS’s diligence reports).

C. Contextualizing Risk: Deloitte’s Concurrent “Similar” Scandals

The user query regarding “similar scandals” involving Deloitte is highly relevant.

The Carriox fraud was uncovered at the exact same time Deloitte’s audit practices in a conceptually identical sector came under fire from UK regulators.

  • The Stenn Investigation (July 2025): On July 10, 2025, the UK’s Financial Reporting Council (FRC) announced an investigation into Deloitte (and Azets). It concerned their audits of Stenn, a collapsed invoice-financing firm.
  • The Stenn case, just like Carriox, involves a lender identifying “suspicious transactions” in a receivables-financing portfolio.
  • The Glencore Investigation (July 2025): Separately, on July 23, 2025, the FRC opened another probe. This probe was into Deloitte’s multi-year audits of the commodities giant Glencore.

The Stenn scandal is not just “similar”; it is a direct parallel.

The FRC investigation into Deloitte’s audit of an invoice-financing firm 13 was announced in July 2025. This is the same month that HPS discovered the Carriox invoice-financing fraud. This timing represents a critical, systemic link.

This is not just two isolated incidents. It is a pattern.

It strongly suggests that Deloitte’s global audit methodology for complex, hard-to-verify assets (like international trade receivables) is fundamentally flawed. The Carriox fraud is “Exhibit B.” This pattern provides a powerful basis for HPS/BlackRock to argue that Deloitte was negligent.

Table 3: Summary of Concurrent Third-Party Auditor Scrutiny (Deloitte)

InvestigationRegulatorSubject Firm(s)Date AnnouncedRelevance to Carriox CaseSource(s)
Stenn AuditsFinancial Reporting Council (FRC), UKDeloitte (and Azets)July 10, 2025Direct Parallel. FRC is probing Deloitte’s audit of a collapsed invoice-financing firm (Stenn) following “suspicious transactions.”
Glencore AuditsFinancial Reporting Council (FRC), UKDeloitteJuly 23, 2025Pattern of Scrutiny. Demonstrates a wider pattern of regulatory investigation into Deloitte’s audit quality for complex, high-risk global firms.

D. Broader Industry and Reputational Impact

Beyond the direct financial losses to HPS and BNPP, this fraud has significant second-order effects:

  • On the Private Credit Industry: It erodes market confidence in underwriting standards for asset-based lending, a cornerstone of the private credit world. It raises the question: if BlackRock and BNP’s diligence failed so simply, whose is effective?
  • On the Telecommunications Industry: It exposes the high-trust, low-verification nature of carrier-to-carrier billing and verification as a critical vulnerability. The impersonation of multiple, major global carriers proves that this “trust chain” is a viable vector for attack.
  • On the “Big Four” Audit Profession: The alleged failure of Deloitte 2 deals a severe blow to the perceived infallibility of elite auditors. This is combined with the concurrent FRC probe into its audit of another failed invoice-financing firm (Stenn). This pattern suggests a systemic inability to adapt verification processes to modern, low-cost digital fraud vectors.

VI. The Legal Labyrinth: Bankruptcy and Civil Litigation

A. U.S. Bankruptcy Court (E.D.N.Y.) Proceedings

All related bankruptcy cases have been filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. They are assigned to Judge Alan S. Trust. The filings occurred in two distinct waves: the “defensive” August 12 filings and the “forced” October 20 filings.

Table 4: Profile of Debtor Entities and Bankruptcy Status (E.D.N.Y.)

Debtor NameRoleCase NumberFiling DateStated AssetsStated LiabilitiesSource(s)
Broadband Telecom, Inc.Operating Co.8:25-bk-73095Aug 12, 2025(Not specified)(Not specified)
BB Servicer, LLCAffiliate8:25-bk-73096Aug 12, 2025(Not specified)(Not specified)
Bridgevoice, Inc.Operating Co.8:25-bk-73097Aug 12, 2025(Not specified)(Not specified)[14]
Carriox Telecap LLCAffiliate8:25-bk-73098Aug 12, 2025$0 – $50,000$0 – $50,000[14, 4]
Bankim BrahmbhattPrincipal8:25-bk-73100Aug 12, 2025(Not specified)(Not specified)[14]
Carriox Capital II, LLCFinancing SPV8:25-bk-74031Oct 20, 2025$0 – $50,000$500M – $1 Billion
BB Capital SPV, LLCFinancing SPV(Joint w/ 74031)Oct 20, 2025(Not specified)(Not specified)

B. The Asset/Liability Chasm

The bankruptcy filing for Carriox Capital II, LLC (Case 8:25-bk-74031) provides definitive, factual confirmation of the fraud’s scale.

The filing lists estimated assets of $0 to $50,000 against estimated liabilities of $500,000,001 to $1 billion. This is not the profile of a normal business failure. It is the textbook profile of a “bust-out” scheme.

This structure is designed to accumulate massive debt (the $500M+ loan) with no corresponding assets. This allows the proceeds to be siphoned off, allegedly to Mauritius and India , before a planned and total collapse.

C. Debtor Compliance and Evasion

The debtors’ actions within the bankruptcy proceedings are consistent with an attempt to obstruct recovery.

  • Failure to File: As of October 23, 2025, just days after its filing, Carriox had already “failed to file its required financial schedules and statements.” This includes the detailed asset, debt, and creditor lists that are the foundation of any Chapter 11 case.
  • Legal Stonewalling: In response to these deadlines, the debtors’ attorneys filed a “Motion to Extend Deadline to File Schedules”.

This is a clear legal delaying tactic. The only reason to delay filing financial schedules—which are the legal map of “where the money is”—is because the money is gone and the debtor wishes to obstruct the creditors. This behavior is inconsistent with a legitimate debtor seeking reorganization.

The judge has the authority to “dismiss the case altogether.” This would strip the company of bankruptcy protection, but this is a hollow victory for lenders if the assets are already offshore and unrecoverable.15

D. The Civil Lawsuit: Alter Domus (as Collateral Agent)

The entire bankruptcy cascade was likely precipitated by the lenders’ first legal strike.

Before the August 12 bankruptcy filings, the lenders’ collateral agent, Alter Domus, filed a civil suit in New York Supreme Court in August 2025.

That suit alleged fabricated telecom receivables and sought to seize assets. Brahmbhatt’s bankruptcy filings were a direct counter-move to halt that civil suit.

VII. Strategic Risk Analysis: “Black Swan” and National Security Implications

The user’s query regarding national security and intellectual property theft is highly astute. The $500 million monetary loss 1 may be a cover for, or a byproduct of, a more sophisticated intelligence-gathering operation.

A. Hypothesis 1: Intellectual Property Theft via Due Diligence

This hypothesis posits that the $500 million loan was not the primary goal. Instead, it may have been the “price of entry” for a sophisticated corporate espionage operation.

  • The “Data Room” Vector: To underwrite a $500M+ loan facility 2, HPS and BNP Paribas would require Brahmbhatt to provide a “virtual data room.” This room would contain his companies’ most sensitive intellectual property, including:
    • Actual (not just faked) customer lists and contracts.
    • Detailed wholesale traffic routing maps and interconnect agreements.
    • Carrier rate cards, pricing structures, and potentially Call Detail Records (CDRs).
  • The Black Swan Scenario (IP Theft): The entire fraud may have been an elaborate corporate or state-sponsored espionage operation. The goal: to exfiltrate the complete operational and financial playbook of a major U.S.-based international telecom carrier (Broadband Telecom/Bankai). The $500 million “loan” was simply the “price” paid to HPS/BlackRock for this access. This sensitive competitive data was then moved offshore.

B. Hypothesis 2: Compromise of Global Telecommunications Infrastructure

This hypothesis posits that the fraud serves as a public “proof-of-concept.” It demonstrates a low-cost, high-impact cyberattack against critical telecommunications infrastructure.

  • The Vector: The fraud proved that a simple, typosquatted domain ($belgacomics.com$) was a sufficient “key.” It unlocked a trusted communications channel with a major financial institution (HPS) while successfully impersonating a critical infrastructure provider (BICS).
  • The National Security “Black Swan” Scenario: A hostile state actor or intelligence agency could observe this success. They could then replicate this method—not for money, but for access.
    1. An actor registers a new typosquatted domain (e.g., $att-carrier-billing.com$).
    2. They use this domain to email the real billing department of another carrier (e.g., Verizon, Vodafone, BICS), posing as an AT&T billing agent.
    3. The email contains a “billing dispute” or “updated interconnect agreement,” likely as a malicious PDF or a link to a credential-harvesting site.
    4. A billing employee clicks the link or opens the file, trusting the correspondence (which this fraud proves is trusted).
    5. The hostile actor now has a persistent foothold inside the secure network of a major U.S. or European telecom carrier.
    6. From this foothold, the actor’s true objective is not theft, but espionage. They could pivot to sensitive systems to exfiltrate lawful intercept (wiretap) configurations, map government traffic routes, or steal subscriber metadata (CDRs).

The $500 million fraud is the headline. The method 3 exposed a critical vulnerability in the billing and verification trust chain of the entire global telecom backbone. From a counterintelligence perspective, this is a five-alarm fire.

VIII. Investigative Conclusion and Forward-Looking Watchlist

A. Summary of Findings

The Carriox Capital fraud is a catastrophic failure of multi-layered due diligence, not merely a clever fraud.

It was enabled by a “chase for yield” environment. Top-tier lenders (HPS, BNPP) 1 and their elite auditors (Deloitte) 2 accepted high-risk, “low collateralisation” deals. They failed to perform basic, fundamental verification.

They were defeated by a simple, $20 typosquatting scam. A single curious employee, not a billion-dollar risk system, finally uncovered this scam.

The most critical takeaway is this: in the modern credit environment, financial due diligence and cybersecurity diligence are no longer separate disciplines. They are one and the same.

B. Lessons Learned & Mitigation Strategies

The failures in this case provide a clear roadmap for preventing future, similar schemes:

  1. Implement Technical Verification for All Counterparties: All due diligence must now include a simple, mandatory technical checklist:
    • Domain whois Check: Verify that a counterparty’s email domain (e.g., $bics.com$) is registered to the counterparty, not a private or unrelated entity.
    • Domain Age: Check the domain’s creation date. A recently created domain ($belgacomics.com$) purporting to represent an established giant (BICS) is a massive red flag.
  2. Mandate Out-of-Band (OOB) Verification: Verification based only on email is no longer acceptable. Lenders must mandate OOB verification, such as:
    • Calling the public, main switchboard of the counterparty (e.g., BICS’s public HQ number) and asking to be transferred to the Accounts Payable manager.
    • Cross-referencing verification contacts with a lender’s independently sourced list of contacts at that firm.
  3. Assume Borrower-Provided Contacts are Compromised: The “closed-loop” verification, where the borrower provides the contact who is then emailed for verification, is a failed model. All verification contacts must be assumed to be false until independently proven otherwise.16

C. Actionable Watchlist for the Skeptical Researcher

  1. E.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Dockets (Cases 8:25-bk-74031, 8:25-bk-73095):
    • What to Watch: Monitor for the filing of the “Schedules and Statements of Financial Affairs” (SOFAs) for Carriox Capital II and Broadband Telecom.
    • Why it Matters: This is the first document that will legally require the debtors to declare, under penalty of perjury, where the $500 million went. Any failure to file or further motions to extend are admissions of obstruction.
  2. Lender Financial Disclosures (BNPP Q4 2025, BlackRock 2025 Annual Report):
    • What to Watch: Any additional provisions or “cost of risk” charges related to this file, or any new disclosures of litigation reserves.
    • Why it Matters: New provisions mean recoveries are failing. New litigation reserves would signal an impending, large-scale professional negligence lawsuit against their auditors (Deloitte/CBIZ).
  3. UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC) Enforcement Portal:
    • What to Watch: The investigation outcome for “Deloitte / Stenn Assets UK Limited”.
    • Why it Matters: If the FRC sanctions Deloitte for its Stenn audit, it creates a powerful legal precedent that HPS/BlackRock’s lawyers will use to claim a pattern of negligence in the Carriox case.
  4. NY Supreme Court / E.D.N.Y. Dockets (Adversary Proceedings):
    • What to Watch: Any new complaints filed by the official “Creditors’ Committee” or Alter Domus against the debtors or third parties.
    • Why it Matters: These filings will contain the deepest forensic details, as they will be based on subpoenaed bank records. They may name new fake domains, new offshore entities, or other co-conspirators.

IX. Appendix A: Technical Analysis of the Deception Vector

A. The Technical Deception: Domain Spoofing (Typosquatting)

The most staggering part of this $500 million fraud is the simplicity of the technical vector. This was not a sophisticated hack. It was a simple typosquatting scam, also known as Business Email Compromise (BEC). The lenders’ August 2025 complaint details the exact domains used to deceive them. The list of allegedly impersonated carriers (whose invoices were faked) includes a “who’s who” of global telecom, including T-Mobile, Telecom Italia Sparkle, and Taiwan Mobile.

Table 2: Analysis of Spoofed Domains and Impersonated Targets

Fake Domain (Alleged)Real Domain (Actual)Impersonated CompanyCompany HQ / FunctionSource(s)
$belgacomics.com$$bics.com$Belgacom Int’l Carrier Services (BICS)Belgium / Global Telecom Carrier
$telstra-au.com$$telstra.com.au$TelstraAustralia / Global Telecom Carrier
(not specified)$singtel.com$SingtelSingapore / Global Telecom Carrier
(not specified)(not specified)CETINCzech Republic / Telecom Infrastructure
(not specified) (not specified)SafaricomKenya / Mobile Network Operator
(not specified)(not specified)T-MobileUSA / Mobile Network Operator

B. The Simplicity of the Vector

The $500 million question is how this deception was “managed so easily.”

The answer is that the lenders’ (and their auditors’) entire verification process for a nine-figure loan facility was apparently defeated. The attack cost less than $50 (the price of a few domain registrations).18

The “vetting” process demonstrably did not include:

  1. A simple $whois$ lookup on $belgacomics.com$. This would have instantly shown it was not registered to BICS/Belgacom.
  2. An “out-of-band” verification. This would involve, for example, calling the publicly listed BICS switchboard and asking for the Accounts Payable department.
  3. Cross-referencing the contact email address with their own independently sourced contacts at that carrier.

This implies the lenders and their auditors operated in a fatally flawed closed loop. They asked the borrower (Brahmbhatt) for the verification contact. Then, they simply emailed whatever address the borrower provided.

This is a complete failure of the “trust but verify” principle and an elementary operational security breakdown.

X. Glossary of Key Terms

  • Asset-Based Lending (ABL): A type of business financing where a loan or line of credit is secured by a company’s assets, most commonly its accounts receivable and inventory. Lenders determine a “borrowing base” based on the value of this collateral and often conduct field audits to verify it.
  • Automatic Stay: A core provision in U.S. bankruptcy law that is automatically triggered the moment a bankruptcy petition is filed. It legally halts all collection actions, foreclosures, and civil litigation against the debtor, giving them breathing room to reorganize.
  • Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV): A separate legal entity (often an LLC or trust) created by a parent company to isolate financial risk. An SPV has its own assets and liabilities, keeping them “off-balance-sheet” for the parent company. They are commonly used for asset securitization or specific, high-risk projects.
  • Typosquatting (URL Hijacking): A type of cyberattack where an adversary registers a domain name that is a slight variation or misspelling of a legitimate, trusted domain (e.g., $belgacomics.com$ vs. $bics.com$). The goal is to impersonate the trusted entity and trick victims into revealing sensitive information or trusting fraudulent communications.

Works Cited

  1. Livemint, “Bankim Brahmbhatt, Indian-origin CEO, under BlackRock’s radar for ‘breathtaking’ $500 million scam. Who is he?”, November 1, 2025, https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/bankim-brahmbhatt-indian-origin-ceo-under-blackrocks-radar-for-breathtaking-500-million-scam-who-is-he-11761907173700.html
  2. Newsletterhunt.com, “Complaint details re: ‘belgacomics.com’ and ‘telstra-au.com’”, N.D., https://newsletterhunt.com/emails/206126
  3. India Today, “Who is Bankim Brahmbhatt, Indian-origin CEO…”, November 1, 2025, https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/who-is-bankim-brahmbhatt-indian-origin-ceo-blackrock-loan-fraud-united-states-2811790-2025-11-01
  4. Business Standard, “BlackRock’s HPS, lenders seek recovery from Bankim Brahmbhatt in fraud case”, November 1, 2025, https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/blackrocks-hps-fraud-bankim-brahmbhatt-case-fake-invoices-bankruptcy-125110100160_1.html
  5. Wireless Estimator, “The great telecom invoice factoring illusion: How New York financier Carriox Capital fooled the money men”, October 23, 2025, https://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2025/the-great-telecom-invoice-factoring-illusion-how-new-york-financier-carriox-capital-fooled-the-money-men/
  6. GTR, “BNP Paribas: €190mn receivables fraud linked to ‘new entries, low collateralisation’”, October 2025, https://www.gtreview.com/news/europe/bnp-paribas-e190mn-receivables-fraud-linked-to-new-entries-low-collateralisation/
  7. PacerMonitor, “Carriox Capital II LLC”, October 20, 2025, https://www.pacermonitor.com/court/56/New_York_Eastern_Bankruptcy_Court
  8. PacerMonitor, “Carriox Capital II LLC Case Details”, October 20, 2025, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/60691446/Carriox_Capital_II_LLC
  9. Financial Reporting Council (FRC), “Enforcement Cases: Stenn Assets UK Limited”, July 10, 2025, https://www.frc.org.uk/library/enforcement/enforcement-cases/?status=&enforcement_regime=&audit=audit&query=
  10. Financial Reporting Council (FRC), “Enforcement Cases: Stenn, Glencore”, July 2025, https://www.frc.org.uk/library/enforcement/enforcement-cases/
  11. Financial Reporting Council (FRC), “Investigation regarding the audits of Stenn by Azets and Deloitte”, July 10, 2025, https://www.frc.org.uk/news-and-events/news/2025/07/investigation-regarding-the-audits-of-stenn-by-azets-and-deloitte/
  12. International Accounting Bulletin, “FRC probes Deloitte and Azets over Stenn audits”, July 11, 2025, https://www.internationalaccountingbulletin.com/news/frc-probes-deloitte-and-azets-over-stenn-audits/
  13. International Accounting Bulletin, “Deloitte under investigation in UK”, July 24, 2025, https://www.internationalaccountingbulletin.com/news/deloitte-under-investigation-in-uk/
  14. Toro Solutions, “Business Email Compromise (BEC): The Invisible Threat… 2024”, 2024, https://www.torosolutions.co.uk/security-insights/business-email-compromise-bec-the-invisible-threat-haunting-organisations-in-2024/
  15. Almutairi, S., “PhD Thesis: Detecting Business Email Compromise (BEC) Fraud…”, 2025, https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/505289/1/Almutairi_PhD_Thesis_2025_PDF-A3b.pdf
  16. Hetherington, C., “OSINT, the Authoritative Guide to Due Diligence”, N.D., (via Scribd) https://www.scribd.com/document/903314732/OSINT-the-Authoritative-Guide-to-Due-Diligence-Cynthia-Hetherington-Z-Library
  17. Rexxfield, “Email Impersonation”, N.D., https://rexxfield.com/email-impersonation/
  18. Scribd, “Email Analysis Training Simulation”, N.D., https://www.scribd.com/document/915101459/Email-Analysis-Training-Simulation
  19. KPMG, “Fraud Risk Management Strategy”, 2014, https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2014/05/fraud-risk-management-strategy-prevention-detection-response-O-201405.pdf
  20. AuditBoard, “Practical Steps for Applying NIST CSF 2.0 to Third-Party Risk Management”, N.D., https://auditboard.com/blog/practical-steps-for-applying-nist-csf-2-0-to-third-party-risk-management
  21. HITRUST Alliance, “Third-Party Risk Management for Vendors”, N.D., https://hitrustalliance.net/blog/third-party-risk-management-for-vendors
  22. Times of India, “Who is Bankim Brahmbhatt, Indian-origin CEO…”, October 31, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/who-is-bankim-brahmbhatt-indian-origin-ceo-accused-of-500m-breathtaking-fraud-at-blackrock-key-details/articleshow/125009870.cms
  23. The Economic Times, “BlackRock’s $500M ‘breathtaking’ fraud: Who is Bankim Brahmbhatt and where is he now?”, November 1, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/nri/latest-updates/us-news-blackrocks-500-million-breathtaking-fraud-who-is-bankim-brahmbhatt-and-where-is-he-now/articleshow/125011491.cms
  24. BusinessBankruptcies.com, “Broadband Telecom, Inc.”, August 12, 2025, https://businessbankruptcies.com/cases/broadband-telecom-inc
  25. PacerMonitor, “Carriox Telecap LLC”, August 12, 2025, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59493899/Carriox_Telecap_LLC
  26. PacerMonitor, “Broadband Telecom, Inc. Docket”, October 31, 2025, https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59493893/Broadband_Telecom,_Inc
  27. India Today, “Who is Bankim Brahmbhatt, Indian-origin CEO…”, November 1, 2025, https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/who-is-bankim-brahmbhatt-indian-origin-ceo-blackrock-loan-fraud-united-states-2811790-2025-11-01
  28. American Bazaar, “Bankim Brahmbhatt accused in $500 million telecom loan fraud”, November 1, 2025, https://americanbazaaronline.com/2025/11/01/bankim-brahmbhatt-accused-in-500-million-telecom-loan-fraud-469503/
  29. The Economic Times, “BlackRock’s $500M ‘breathtaking’ fraud…”, November 1, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/nri/latest-updates/us-news-blackrocks-500-million-breathtaking-fraud-who-is-bankim-brahmbhatt-and-where-is-he-now/amp_articleshow/125011491.cms
  30. Times of India, “Explained: How an Indian-origin entrepreneur borrowed $500 million…”, November 1, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/explained-how-an-indian-origin-entrepreneur-borrowed-500-million-from-the-worlds-biggest-asset-manager/articleshow/125019184.cms
  31. Hindustan Times, “Who is Bankim Brahmbhatt…”, November 1, 2025, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/who-is-bankim-brahmbhatt-indian-origin-man-accused-of-breathtaking-500-million-blackrock-linked-fraud-101761959165664-amp.html
  32. India Today, “BlackRock-backed lender accuses Indian-origin entrepreneur of $500 million fraud”, October 31, 2025, https://www.indiatoday.in/business/story/blackrock-backed-lender-accuses-indian-origin-entrepreneur-of-500-million-fraud-report-2811490-2025-10-31
  33. Carrier Community, “Africa 2022 GCCM Zanzibar”, 2022, https://old.carriercommunity.com/africa-2022-gccm-zanzibar/
  34. SlideShare, “Africa 2018 – Leading Regional System”, 2018, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/africa-2018-leading-regional-system/203196319
  35. Wireless Estimator, “The great telecom invoice factoring illusion…”, October 23, 2025, https://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2025/10/
  36. Cornell Legal Information Institute (LII), “Chapter 9 Bankruptcy”, July 2022, (via roseinstitute.org) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chapter_9_bankruptcy
  37. Stretto, “Case 24-80093-mvl11 Doc 464”, January 24, 2025, https://cases.stretto.com/public/x349/12969/PLEADINGS/1296901242580000000148.pdf
  38. BNP Paribas, “BNP Paribas in the US: Locations”, N.D., https://usa.bnpparibas/en/homepage/about-us/bnp-paribas-in-the-us/locations/
  39. BNP Paribas, “Our Locations: New York”, N.D., https://securities.cib.bnpparibas/who-we-are/our-locations/
  40. BNP Paribas, “Careers: New York”, N.D., https://group.bnpparibas/en/careers/all-job-offers/new-york
  41. American Express, “The Ins and Outs of Accounts Receivable Financing”, N.D., https://www.americanexpress.com/en-us/business/trends-and-insights/articles/the-ins-and-outs-of-accounts-receivable-financing/
  42. Taulia, “What is Receivables Finance?”, N.D., https://taulia.com/glossary/what-is-receivables-finance/
  43. eCapital, “Receivables Financing”, N.D., https://ecapital.com/blog/the-difference-between-asset-based-lending-abl-and-asset-based-financing/
  44. U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), “Comptroller’s Handbook: Accounts Receivable and Inventory Financing”, N.D., https://www.occ.gov/publications-and-resources/publications/comptrollers-handbook/files/accts-rec-inventory-financing/pub-ch-accts-rec-inventory-financing.pdf
  45. CISA, “Joint Cybersecurity Advisory: APT40”, N.D., https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa21-200a
  46. IRONSCALES, “Understanding the Email Security Ecosystem: Phishing Techniques”, N.D., https://ironscales.com/blog/understanding-the-email-security-ecosystem-phishing-techniques
  47. Security Boulevard, “What is Typosquatting? How to Prevent URL Hijacking”, November 2, 2022, https://securityboulevard.com/2022/11/what-is-typosquatting-how-to-prevent-url-hijacking/
  48. ATTA, “Receivables financing”, January 10, 2025, https://atta.cmox.mo/disclosure/20250110/1877643102130884610/38335641.pdf
  49. BusinessBankruptcies.com, “BB Servicer, LLC”, August 12, 2025, https://businessbankruptcies.com/cases/bb-servicer-llc
  50. Wireless Estimator, “Missing Filings and a Ticking Clock”, October 23, 2025, https://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2025/the-great-telecom-invoice-factoring-illusion-how-new-york-financier-carriox-capital-fooled-the-money-men/
  51. Wireless Estimator, “The great telecom invoice factoring illusion…”, October 23, 2025, https://wirelessestimator.com/articles/2025/the-great-telecom-invoice-factoring-illusion-how-new-york-financier-carriox-capital-fooled-the-money-men/
  52. PacerMonitor, “Motion to Extend Deadline to File Schedules”, October 31, 2025, https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/59493893/Broadband_Telecom,_Inc
  53. Bolster.ai, “Leveraging AI and Automation to Stop Typosquatting Attacks”, November 2023, https://bolster.ai/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Leveraging-AI-and-Automation-to-Stop-Typosquatting-Attacks.pdf
  54. Norton Rose Fulbright, “Countdown to Compliance…”, N.D., https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/knowledge/publications/ea17fd3b/countdown-to-compliance-five-key-priorities-for-those-preparing-for-the-uks-new
  55. Colorado Office of the State Controller, “Colorado Fraud Workshop”, January 14, 2025, https://osc.colorado.gov/sites/osc/files/documents/Colorado%20Fraud%20Workshop%20Deck_011425%20%281%29.pdf
  56. eCapital, “The Difference Between Asset-Based Lending (ABL) and Asset-Based Financing”, N.D., https://ecapital.com/blog/the-difference-between-asset-based-lending-abl-and-asset-based-financing/
  57. Investopedia, “Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)”, N.D., https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spv.asp#:~:text=A%20special%20purpose%20vehicle%20(SPV)%20is%20a%20subsidiary%20company%20that’s,assets%2C%20operations%2C%20or%20risks.
  58. Investopedia, “What Is the Role of SPVs (SPEs) in Public-Private Partnerships?”, N.D., https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030915/what-role-do-spvs-spes-play-publicprivate-partnerships.asp
  59. Investopedia, “Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)”, N.D., https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spv.asp

Comments

Leave a Reply

More posts