Who is the Indian origin loan shark who’s officially one of England’s serial litigators?

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) secured a £5 million confiscation order and £230,000 compensation to be paid to consumers. (Photo: Twitter)

Dharam Prakash Gopee, 69, an Indian origin businessman in the UK, was convicted and jailed in February 2018 for his dubious moneylending activities targeting vulnerable people. The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) secured a £5 million confiscation order and £230,000 compensation to be paid to consumers. But instead of learning some lessons, Gopee became a serial litigator and is now barred from issuing new proceedings in any court of England and Wales without the explicit permission of a judge.

Earlier this week, on July 25, 2023, a three-judge bench made a General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) against Gopee for three years. The GCRO is the widest form of civil restraint order which is made when a person repeatedly makes applications and claims which are totally without merit. Gopee joins a select list of up to 60 individuals in England who have GCRO issued against them.

The chain of vexatious and meritless applications started in 2015 and continued after he was put in prison due to contempt of court and because of his conviction for indulging in unlicensed money lending. Between 2015 and 2019 he began at least 12 judicial review claims and also sought to be made party in several claims brought by his consumers who were seeking to escape from his unenforceable loans.

Loathsome moneylender

Gopee described himself as the lender of the last resort and conducted his business through a variety of companies. Just one out of his several companies had a consumer credit licence which lapsed in 2012. Undeterred, Gopee continued the exploitation and secured 1,000 charges on hundreds of properties of borrowers. He used to register charges over the home of borrowers to facilitate possession of a property if they failed to pay the debt. In August 2021, the FCA managed to get a high court order removing over 600 charges, notices or restrictions registered against borrowers’ properties by Gopee.

For unpaid sums as low as £2000 he would make borrowers sell their home to one of his companies. In order to purchase the homes, another company would purportedly loan the purchase money to the first company. There were over 400 properties of which he obtained possession only to rent them back to the borrowers. Through this circuitous route he operationalised his greed and deceit to maximise profits.

Between 2012 and 2016, Gopee gave £1 million of new loans and collected £2 million in payments. In 2015, the FCA got a restraint order against Gopee in order to prevent the disposal of assets belonging to him and the companies under his control. This was done as the FCA started building a case against him. Gopee, however, wilfully ignored the restraint order and continued to dispose assets without informing the court and the FCA. This included assets belonging to a family trust, among other financial dealings. This led to a series of contempt of court proceedings for which he was jailed for varying periods. Gopee launched appeals against his prison terms for contempt of court.

Trial at Southwark crown court

Gopee was prosecuted by the FCA and a trial commenced at Southwark crown court for his illegal moneylending. By then, he had already faced numerous cases, where he appeared on behalf of his companies defending steps taken against borrowers. In several cases Gopee was fighting decisions wherein courts had set aside possessions of borrowers’ homes by him. In February 2018, the Southwark crown court sentenced him to 3.5 years in prison. Horror stories of Gopee’s conduct started to emerge including instances of possessing homes belonging to families who had borrowed as less as £2000 to £5000.

In many cases Gopee had managed to get eviction orders without giving proper notice to the borrowers. In some instances he was accused of not disclosing complete information to judges in order to prevent borrowers from being restored to their homes. And if borrowers succeeded in getting their homes back, he was quick to file an appeal.

Even though he was jailed, he continued to file appeal so much so that between 2015 and 2019 he had made 12 judicial reviews claim. He also accused a judge who heard a case involving his borrowers of being bias! In several cases he would file an application/appeal using third parties who would be related to him or under his control, without getting his name officially. As he made up a “history of unmeritorious application”, the first GCRO was made in October 2019 by the high court in London. He filed an application to set aside his conviction by the Southwark crown court which was unsuccessful.

The second GCRO

Gopee appealed the GCRO order saying that it was made without notice and a hearing and thus violated his human rights and went against public interest.

In England there are three forms of civil restraint order (CRO). At the lowest is a limited CRO which restrains the person from issuing an application in the proceedings in relation to which the limited CRO is made without the permission of a judge. The extended CRO restrains a person from issuing claims or making applications in which the order is made without the permission of the judge.

The widest form of the civil restraint order is the GCRO — general civil restraint order — which restrains a person from issuing any new proceedings against any defendant in the courts of England and Wales, or from making an application, appeal or any other process in the case in which GCRO is made without the permission of a judge.

Gopee’s appeal against the GCRO came up for hearing in July 2023, but by that time it had expired its two-year duration in October 2021. The FCA raised the point that the court could take the opportunity to file fresh GCRO as after the expiry of the first GCRO, Gopee had again started to file unmeritorious applications.

Since the expiry of the first GCRO, seven orders were issued by various courts refusing or striking out applications made by Gopee due to lack of merit. The high court noted that “although in some of these cases Mr Gopee is not named as a party in the action, in all cases Mr Gopee was the person bringing the claim, application or appeal which was totally without merit”.

The court’s judgment means that till July 2026, FCA, his borrowers, and other entities have earned reprieve.