Over the last two years, the founder of Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd., Byju Raveendran, has been subjected to a gamut of grave claims in various jurisdictions, ranging from a claimed $533 million fraud to allegations of regulatory evasion and contempt of court. Although the lender’s reports and media analysis have influenced substantial portions of the popular account, Raveendran has acted on numerous occasions in judicial filings, oaths, and interviews. This article gathers all those responses in one place, providing a summary of what he has said, where he has said it, and the evidence he claims to support his position.
The $533 Million Question: Byju Raveendran’s Answer to the Largest Allegation Against Him
In a public statement made in November 2025, Byju Raveendran directly addressed the central allegation surrounding the $533 million drawn under the Term Loan B facility.
“For two years, GLAS Trust has attacked my integrity and other founders by repeating a story they knew was false. Today, their own documents expose the truth. The funds were used for the benefit of Think & Learn and our expansion.”
According to Raveendran, the $533 million followed a defined corporate route, from Byju’s Alpha, through Camshaft Capital, into OCI Limited (a London-based entity), and ultimately back into Think & Learn, structured to comply with Indian foreign exchange regulations. He maintains that there was zero personal enrichment at any stage.
He further states that documentation submitted to courts includes masked bank statements, intermediary confirmations, and deployment records showing that the funds were used for business purposes such as international expansion, acquisitions, and advertising.
Regarding the contribution of OCI, Raveendran claims that OCI provided services worth over $600 million within the relevant timeframe. He asserts that sums owing to OCI were offset against the money owed by Think and Learn to its temporary liquidity position, and business records to prove this claim are in place.
In December 2025, Raveendran cited a Delaware court order that overturned a $ 1 billion damages award, finding that no liability on the merits of the underlying claims had been determined.
He has also alleged that GLAS Trust had access to banking documentation but represented the funds as “missing” in court filings, an issue he says has been raised before the Delaware court as evidence of lender misconduct.
The Fugitive Label That Doesn’t Exist in Court Documents: Byju Raveendran’s Direct Answer
Addressing repeated references to him as a “fugitive,” Raveendran stated in a May 2025 ANI interview:
“If you see this fugitive word, they only use it verbally. None of the filings, one of the court filings, none of the affidavits, you will ever find this. This is just part of a malicious media campaign.”
He has consistently argued that the term does not appear in filings before courts in Delaware, India, the UAE, or Singapore, and exists only in media discourse.
To refute the evasion accusations, Raveendran cites active litigation in several jurisdictions, including the Delaware courts, the DIFC courts in Dubai, and the Kerala High Court.
He has also mentioned that he travelled to India on more than one occasion before the commencement of the insolvency proceedings in July 2024, with Dubai serving as a base for his global activities.
On asset location, he has said:
“Our entire wealth, the entire company was built out of India. All our wealth was created in India, taxes were paid in India, and invested back in India. We have nothing outside India.”
He has attributed the fugitive narrative to what he describes as vested interests seeking to gain control of the company through reputational damage.
ED Investigation Closed Without Criminal Charges: Why He Says Regulatory Scrutiny Was Misrepresented
Raveendran has also addressed the ED investigation, which he says was frequently mischaracterized.
According to him, the inquiry related to Think & Learn as a corporate entity and not to him personally. He has stated that the investigation concluded and moved into an adjudication phase, without the filing of criminal charges or a PMLA charge sheet.
“There was never a money laundering charge. There was never a charge sheet.”
He maintains that he cooperated fully with the ED, attended summons, and continued travelling to India after the inquiry began, something he says would not have been possible had a lookout circular been in place.
The Contempt Ruling He Contests: Why He Says the US Court Denied Him Proper Defense
In November 2025, Raveendran argued that a contempt ruling issued by a U.S. court arose from procedural limitations rather than an adjudication on fraud.
He has stated that he was not granted the 30-day period he requested to engage U.S. legal counsel. According to his account, after lenders took control, emails were sent to Think & Learn’s lawyers asking them to withdraw, leaving him without representation during expedited proceedings.
He has emphasized that the court itself noted that no liability on the merits of GLAS Trust’s claims was determined, and that any damages referenced were part of a sanction related to document production timelines, not a finding of fraud.
Raveendran has said he intends to place further evidence before U.S. courts to demonstrate that lenders and related parties misrepresented facts across jurisdictions.
The Singapore Company Claim: Why He Says Byju’s Global Was Never a Personal Asset
Following accusations about Byju Global Pte Ltd in Singapore, Raveendran has disavowed any personal ownership or control over the entity, describing it as a part of the corporate structure of Think & Learn.
He has also claimed that dealings of the Singapore entity have been conducted on the instructions of the financial intermediaries and in full knowledge of the board. According to him, the entity functioned to route funds back to the Indian parent and did not serve as a personal holding vehicle.
He maintains that the corporate trail was fully documented and that any portrayal of opacity resulted from selective disclosure rather than the absence of records.
That Infamous May 2023 Quote: “Money Is Someplace the Lenders Will Never Find It”
Raveendran has also clarified a widely cited May 2023 remark made during a call with lenders’ financial advisors.
He has said the statement referred to the complexity of fund deployment across jurisdictions and corporate subsidiaries, not to concealment or wrongdoing. At the time, he claimed lenders had become hostile and the debt had been acquired by distressed funds, prompting the company to safeguard capital within legally compliant structures.
He emphasizes that the remark was made openly, with lenders’ advisors on the call, and that the funds remained within the Think & Learn corporate ecosystem.
Why Document Production Was Delayed: His Response to US Court Sanctions
Addressing delays in document production, Raveendran has cited a lack of financial resources to engage U.S. counsel on an expedited basis, combined with the complexity of tracing transactions across multiple countries.
“Two years back, we were sitting on thousands of crores. Today we have nothing.”
He has stated that documents were not destroyed and that delays were logistical rather than intentional, noting that partial responses were eventually submitted in June 2025.
Why Evidence Matters More Than Words: His Final Position on Credibility
In closing, Raveendran has repeatedly emphasized that his defense rests on documentation rather than narrative.
“I’m not asking anyone to believe me. I’m submitting evidence.”
He has pointed to the December 2025 Delaware reversal of a $1 billion judgment as validation that documentary records matter. He has further emphasized his continued attendance in the courts in India, the United States, Dubai, and Singapore, thus proving that he is not avoiding investigation but is fighting the charges.
He has confirmed that he has not received any salary since 2024 and that he has invested his personal wealth in the company, arguing that this is incompatible with claims of personal enrichment.
Raveendran has stated that he still trusts the judicial processes by saying that, though the courts might have slow processes, they still have an internal reliance on evidence.
