--- title: "Cronus payments: recipient defenses and court outcomes" language: en canonical: https://osint.v3rta.com/dossiers/market-financial-solutions/topics/cronus-payments/ 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"] --- # Cronus payments: recipient defenses and court outcomes **Question.** How did the court treat the recipients of December 2025 MFS payments? **Answer.** The court rejected proprietary claims against specified contesting recipients while continuing an injunction concerning Rihan Dewan pending trial. It did not make one collective finding about all fifteen defendants. ## The disputed flow of funds - Analysis: The June judgment records an undisputed breach of trust: Cronus permitted MFS to use the account for mortgage advances and purchases, but MFS transferred £6,370,878 to Sriharans Solicitors. When the deals failed, Sriharans returned the money to an MFS Lloyds account rather than Cronus. MFS then paid £9,070,220 across twelve accounts. The traced £6,370,878 subset and the total payouts are different amounts. [s-d138] - Qualification: The trust arrangements and initial breach were undisputed for this application; tracing into each recipient’s payment and recipient notice remain distinct issues. - Analysis: The recipients had provided loans to MFS, described in the judgment as earning 10–15% annually for further property-backed lending. Their defenses centred on receiving repayment of genuine debts in good faith. The repayment amounts and recipients are retained in the canonical evidence records; familial or investment links do not give every recipient the same legal position. [s-d138] - Qualification: Receipt of payment did not by itself establish wrongdoing. The court accepted accord and satisfaction and found no serious issue against the six other contesting defendants. The dismissals concerned the six other defendants contesting that application. Other defendants had separately resolved the injunction or claims; they were not all adjudicated in this decision. - Response: The contesting recipients said the payments repaid their loans and that they had no notice of the trust. The contesting recipients said they had received repayments of loans in good faith without notice of the trust. Dewan challenged tracing and raised hardship; his good-faith issue was left for trial. - Outcome: The six contesting defendants other than Dewan succeeded; the other recipients’ injunctions or claims had been resolved separately. The injunction continued against Dewan pending trial or further order; the claims against the other six contesting defendants were dismissed. ## Dismissals and the continuing injunction - Analysis: The judgment of 30 June 2026 dismissed claims against the identified defendants who contested them, apart from Rihan Dewan. Other defendants’ positions had been dealt with separately, including undertakings. The result must not be widened into an acquittal of all recipients or a fraud finding against them. [s-d138] - Response: The contesting recipients said they had received repayments of loans in good faith without notice of the trust. Dewan challenged tracing and raised hardship; his good-faith issue was left for trial. - Outcome: The injunction continued against Dewan pending trial or further order; the claims against the other six contesting defendants were dismissed. - Analysis: Dewan, Raja’s stepson, said he invested his own funds and sought withdrawal through his mother and stepfather before receiving £290,142 on 23 December 2025. The judge left his knowledge and good faith for trial and continued interim relief. Family proximity was a reason to preserve that question, not a final finding that he knowingly received misapplied funds. [s-d138] - Analysis: The subsequent Cronus progress report records settlements with some defendants for £200,000 and £424,431 of costs agreed with certain defendants. These later financial outcomes qualify the recovery narrative and do not cancel the distinction between the dismissed claims and the continuing Dewan injunction. [s-d206] [s-d138] - Qualification: The dismissals concerned the six other defendants contesting that application. Other defendants had separately resolved the injunction or claims; they were not all adjudicated in this decision. Dewan’s investment and withdrawal account is his evidence. The court expressly recognised that he might have acted entirely in good faith and left his notice of the trust for trial. - Response: The contesting recipients said they had received repayments of loans in good faith without notice of the trust. Dewan challenged tracing and raised hardship; his good-faith issue was left for trial. Dewan said the payment followed his withdrawal notice and contended that communications through his mother to Raja were notice to MFS. - Outcome: Injunction was unsuccessful at substantive return hearing 23 June 2026; settlements produced £200,000 and certain defendants’ costs were settled for £424,431. The injunction continued against Dewan pending trial or further order; the claims against the other six contesting defendants were dismissed. The court continued the injunction against Dewan, leaving trust notice and good faith for trial. ## Sources - [s-d138] Ocorian Trustee and Cronus Finance v recipients — [2026] EWHC 1635 (Comm), High Court of Justice / The National Archives - [s-d206] Cronus Finance: administrators’ progress report, 3 March–2 September 2026, Companies House