{"id":9977,"date":"2026-03-07T16:38:39","date_gmt":"2026-03-07T16:38:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/rico-strikes-out-again-in-the-commercial-division-bank-of-india-v-anaya-gems-farrell-fritz-p-c\/"},"modified":"2026-03-07T16:38:39","modified_gmt":"2026-03-07T16:38:39","slug":"rico-strikes-out-again-in-the-commercial-division-bank-of-india-v-anaya-gems-farrell-fritz-p-c","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/rico-strikes-out-again-in-the-commercial-division-bank-of-india-v-anaya-gems-farrell-fritz-p-c\/","title":{"rendered":"RICO Strikes (Out) Again in the Commercial Division: Bank of India v Anaya Gems | Farrell Fritz, P.C."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

I have a soft spot for civil RICO: treble damages, enterprise allegations, the chance to elevate ordinary fraud into something operatic. But, as many of us have learned, civil RICO is not meant to transform ordinary commercial disputes into racketeering cases. Courts routinely dismiss such claims when plaintiffs fail to meet the statute\u2019s strict pleading requirements.<\/p>\n

We previously covered one such example in this post: A RICO Claim in an Ordinary Business Dispute? Not So Fast, Says the Commercial Division | New York Commercial Division Practice<\/a>. There, the court denied leave to amend to add a civil RICO claim because the plaintiff failed to allege that defendants engaged in an enterprise\u2014 an essential element of a RICO claim.<\/p>\n

A recent New York County Supreme Court case, <\/em>Bank of India, N.Y. Branch v Anaya Gems, Inc.<\/em>,<\/a> 2026 NY Slip Op 30094(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty. Jan. 5, 2026), illustrates the same reality: even complex, multi-party fraud schemes cannot survive a motion to dismiss without clear enterprise allegations.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

The dispute arises from lending relationships between the plaintiff banks and the jewelry company Anaya Gems, Inc.<\/strong> and its related entities. Bank of India<\/strong> and Allahabad Bank<\/strong> extended approximately $40 million in credit to Anaya, secured by a lien on the company\u2019s assets.<\/p>\n

In early 2018, Anaya defaulted on its obligations. Around the same time, Anaya informed the banks that it was experiencing financial difficulties and was winding down operations. The banks, concerned about a sharp decline in reported inventory\u2014including an unreported $10.5 million write-off of loose diamonds\u2014obtained the appointment of a receiver.<\/p>\n

The receiver\u2019s investigation revealed that Anaya\u2019s CEO, Anshul Gandhi, and the other defendants allegedly diverted Anaya\u2019s assets and operations to affiliated companies, allegedly leaving Anaya largely stripped of its value. Michael Pasqual (VP of Sales and Marketing at Anaya) and Michael Scheinman (President of Sales at Anaya) were alleged to have participated in a coordinated, multi-year effort to move Anaya\u2019s assets\u2014including inventory, product lines, customer and vendor relationships, and accounts receivable\u2014to affiliated entities controlled by the Gandhi family and their close associates, including the principals of SDC Designs.<\/p>\n

The banks also alleged that Gandhi and other defendants had been conducting an international customs-related fraud scheme since 2010, involving the underreporting of the value of imported jewelry from Hong Kong and Thailand. Payments reflecting the difference between reported and unreported values were allegedly funneled to Gandhi family entities.<\/p>\n

The banks attempted to frame these actions as a civil RICO enterprise, alleging that Pasqual and Scheinman facilitated the transfer of collateral out of Anaya to benefit Gandhi, his family, and affiliated entities. Specifically, the complaint claims that:<\/p>\n