Khemanand Hurhangee: Twinwin and property-company roles

analysisTwinwin’s PSC entry records Hurhangee’s interest in at least 75% of shares and voting rights from 10 April 2019, with director-appointment rights. The officer record gives him a directorship from that date. A large number of other appointments includes London property companies; an appointment count alone does not establish nominee status or beneficial ownership for somebody else. ^{1 2 3}

qualification

Registered control by Hurhangee and allegations of Raja’s practical control are different propositions; the PSC entry does not resolve the allegations. Numerous appointments do not establish nominee or beneficial-owner status.

analysisCompanies House identifies MAGUS ACSP as his identity-verification provider. The documentary connection to Magus’s accounting business is a lead that requires exact legal-entity reconciliation; it should not be described as proved merely from similar names. Shared service addresses similarly do not establish common ownership. ^{3 4}

qualification

MAGUS ACSP is the verification provider named in the record. Its exact legal identity with Magus Chartered Accountants is not established.

analysisThe Twinwin provisional-liquidation applicants alleged that Raja and Zeeshan Khan directed lending transactions despite Hurhangee’s registered position. Raja denied the allegations. The court made an interim protective appointment, and Twinwin later entered compulsory liquidation; those procedural events do not determine every alleged arrangement between the people concerned. ^{1 2 3}

qualification

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. 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. The later winding-up entry is a procedural outcome; it does not by itself prove the substantive allegations underlying the earlier application.

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. 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.

outcome

Twinwin’s provisional liquidators were appointed on 6 March 2026 and compulsory liquidation began on 18 June 2026.

analysisReporting about several property-company directors links Hurhangee and Dipendra Amin to the wider financing network, while expressly stating that wrongdoing was not being alleged against those directors. The profile preserves that limitation rather than extending the claims against MFS to every property-company officeholder. ⁴

qualification

The proposition is reported by the retained source; its dates and stated capacities must not be treated as broader independently established facts.

response

The source expressly states it makes no suggestion of wrongdoing by Magus or the named individuals.