--- title: "Khemanand Hurhangee: Twinwin and property-company roles" language: en canonical: https://osint.v3rta.com/dossiers/market-financial-solutions/people/hurhangee/ as_of: 2026-10-09 keywords: ["Market Financial Solutions","MFS","Paresh Raja","Pratibha Raja","mortgage servicing","bridging finance","securitisation","administration","Twinwin","Cronus Finance","Galaktikos","Trident Funding"] --- # Khemanand Hurhangee: Twinwin and property-company roles **Question.** What does the record establish about Hurhangee’s roles? **Answer.** Khemanand Hurhangee is Twinwin’s registered controller and director and holds numerous property-company appointments. Reported operational links to Raja remain distinct from those registry facts. ## Registered interests and appointments - Analysis: Twinwin’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. [s-d16] [s-d36] [s-d37] - 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. - Analysis: Companies 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. [s-d37] [s-d14] - Qualification: MAGUS ACSP is the verification provider named in the record. Its exact legal identity with Magus Chartered Accountants is not established. ## Twinwin allegations and limitations - Analysis: The 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. [s-d137] [s-d113] [s-d17] - 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. - Analysis: Reporting 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. [s-d233] - 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. ## Sources - [s-d16] Companies House: Twinwin Limited — persons with significant control, Companies House - [s-d36] Companies House: Twinwin Limited — officers, Companies House - [s-d37] Companies House: Khemanand Hurhangee officer appointments, Companies House - [s-d14] MFS annual report and consolidated accounts to 31 December 2023, Companies House - [s-d137] London Bridging and CLYL SV v Twinwin — [2026] EWHC 1053 (Ch), High Court of Justice / The National Archives - [s-d113] Companies House: Twinwin Limited — insolvency record, Companies House - [s-d17] Media source · s-d17 - [s-d233] Media source · s-d233