Serial Fraudster: Gaurav Srivastava has been accused, and convicted, of fraud and misrepresentation multiple times in the US.
Convicted to pay USD 80,000 in 2019 and nearly USD 1 million in 2014, over the past few years, Gaurav has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a con artist.
Gaurav Srivastava, who has built a reputation of an honest and philanthropic businessman related to the CIA, has been revealed as a fraudster by online US legal data. Between 2019 and 2014, Gaurav and several of his family members have faced accusations and convictions multiple times in the US for fraud and misrepresentation, exposing highly questionable intentions behind their business dealings.
In 2019, Gaurav Srivastava was convicted by a Court order to pay USD 80,000 after failing to fulfil a payment obligation of USD 82,088 to the Keck Hospital in Los Angeles for medical services provided to his father, Jaswant Srivastava. Despite having issued checks from his company Veecon Biotech LLC (Delaware, US), Gaurav had later halted the payments. (Case No. 19STCV03981: https://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/casesummary.aspx?casetype=civil)
Below is an excerpt from the legal documents of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.
‘Gaurav Srivastava as the President of the Defendant company provided Plaintiff's Assignor with a check dated 05/24/18 in the amount of $14,850.00 made payable to Keck Medical Center USC and another check dated 05/24/18 in the amount of $67,238.00 made payable to Keck Medical Center USC for a total of $82,088.00 to pay for his father's medical services. Both checks were to be drawn from Defender company. The Defendant's President stopped payment on the checks and the balance remains unpaid’.
Gaurav Srivastava and his brother Pankaj Srivastava were also convicted by a Court order to pay nearly USD 1 million in 2014, when Nixon Peabody LLP (US) initiated legal proceedings against them and their company Veecon Group. They had breached an agreement made in 2013 by failing to honour invoices totalling USD 155,329 for legal services provided by Nixon Peabody LLP. As representatives of Veecon Group, Gaurav and Pankaj Srivastava were held accountable for the outstanding debt to Nixon Peabody LLP and were ordered to pay. (Case No. BC548034: https://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/casesummary.aspx?casetype=civil)
Below is an excerpt from the legal documents of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.
‘In early October 2013, in an effort to obtain Nixon Peabody's forbearance and willingness to continue as counsel, Gaurav Srivastava provided Nixon Peabody a personal check dated October 4, 2013 in the amount of $50,000.00. The check was returned for lack of sufficient funds. Later in October 2013, Gaurav Srivastava promised full payment by October 21, 2013. To date, no such payment, or for that matter, any payment has been received by Nixon Peabody’.
In 2017, Gaurav Srivastava was accused of fraud and breach of contract. Between 2015 and 2016, Veecon Biotech, under Gaurav Srivastava's leadership, entered into agreements with the plaintiffs, falsely claiming they held licenses to market saliva diagnostics technologies and appointing them as sales representatives. Gaurav Srivastava went further, making deceptive statements regarding Dr. David Wong's association with Veecon Biotech. If the plaintiffs withdrew their complaints after reaching settlements in October 2020, the Superior Court of California rejected these settlements, leaving the case unresolved. (Case no. BC648883: https://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/casesummary.aspx?casetype=civil)
In 2019, a certain Patricia Riordan Torrey also initiated a legal case against Gaurav Srivastava, his company Veecon Biotech LLC, and his wife Sharon Srivastava as defendants. However, no additional information regarding the details or progression of the case could be located. Whilst Gaurav Srivastava and his wife Sharon Srivastava accused a certain Jill Small of defamation and of having 'intentionally interfered with a business deal that would have netted Plaintiff (Gaurav and Sharon Srivastava) approximately $40,000,000 in profit, and then tried to extort $500,000', the motion to seal the entire court file was denied in December 2022 because of a lack of specificity. (Case no. 21STCV28536: https://trellis.law/ruling/21stcv28536/gaurav-srivastava-vs-jill-small/20221208729619)