SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------x SONIA M. TOLEDO, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : NISHA SABHARWAL, MOHIT SABHARWAL, : PADMA DEOGUN, VASTRA INC., PEACOCK : THRONE LLC, OM VASTRA LLC AND OM VASTRA : MIAMI LLC, : : Defendants. : -----------------------------------------------------------------------x Plaintiff designates New York County as the place of trial SUMMONS Index No. The basis of venue is the residence of Plaintiff. To the above-named Defendants: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a Notice of Appearance, on the Plaintiff s attorneys within twenty (20) days after service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: New York, New York June 13, 2017 PARKER POHL LLP By: David M. Pohl M. Todd Parker 420 Lexington Avenue Suite 2440 New York, New York 10170 (212) 202-8886 (646) 924-3100 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff 1 of 47
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------------x SONIA M. TOLEDO, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : NISHA SABHARWAL, MOHIT SABHARWAL, : PADMA DEOGUN, VASTRA INC., PEACOCK : THRONE LLC, OM VASTRA LLC AND OM VASTRA : MIAMI LLC, : : Defendants. : -----------------------------------------------------------------------x COMPLAINT Index No. Plaintiff Sonia Toledo, by her attorneys, Parker Pohl LLP, as and for her Complaint against Defendants Nisha Sabharwal ( Nisha ), Mohit Sabharwal ( Mohit ), Padma Deogun ( Padma ), Vastra Inc. ( Vastra ), Peacock Throne LLC ( Peacock Throne ), OM Vastra LLC ( OM Vastra ) and OM Vastra Miami LLC ( OM Vastra Miami ), alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Nisha Sabharwal is a con artist a cold, shameless liar. So is her husband, Mohit Sabharwal. So is her mother, Padma Deogun. 2. This Complaint describes how they defrauded their family member and loved one, Sonia Toledo. 3. Defendants scheme perpetrated on others in addition to Toledo involved gaining their victims trust by any means, and then convincing them that Nisha is an authority on Indian jewelry and has access to spectacular, antique Indian jewels, including one-of-a-kind heirlooms from the personal collection of an Indian princess. Nisha then made her victims believe she was selling them that jewelry, including by falsely representing the item s origin, 2 of 47
composition, authenticity and value. In reality, however, the pieces are just cheap, Indian-styled knock offs worth a tiny fraction of the exorbitant prices paid. 4. Ms. Toledo had the misfortune of meeting Nisha in summer 2012. 5. Upon learning of Toledo s affinity for India, art and special, meaningful jewelry, Nisha quickly identified Toledo as a target for the family fraud. To that end, Nisha embarked on an aggressive campaign to gain Toledo s trust through heartless manipulation and deceit. 6. Nisha invited Toledo for weekly lunches, where she introduced Toledo to Mohit and Padma. There, and in regular communications, Nisha sold herself as both an expert in antique, Indian jewelry and via faked concern, warmth and empathy a true friend to Toledo. 7. Toledo was intrigued by Nisha, both as a new friend and as someone with exclusive access (as she portrayed it) to one-of-a-kind, spectacular antique Indian jewelry. 8. Having no reason to suspect Nisha or her family of duplicity, Toledo purchased a few items early on (fakes, as it turned out). 9. With confirmation that the ruse was working, Nisha, Mohit and Padma sought to draw Toledo further in. To do that, they sought to fool her into believing, not that she was merely a friend, but that she was family. 10. Indeed, Nisha, Mohit and Padma appeared to Toledo and any outside observer to wholeheartedly welcome Toledo into the family. In addition to nearly day-to-day communication, they hosted her for regular dinners at their New York home, had her stay with them at their winter home in Florida, invited her to family Thanksgivings and birthdays (Toledo even hosted a few) and exchanged holiday gifts. 2 3 of 47
11. By 2013, they were telling Toledo you are family. At the same time, they were methodically defrauding her of exorbitant amounts of cash based on a series of cold-hearted and vicious ploys and lies. 12. Sinking lower still, Defendants even defrauded Toledo of her own family jewelry, including special heirlooms that Toledo inherited from her late mother. 13. Toledo, at all times during the course of Defendants fraud, reasonably believed and relied on the false representations made by Nisha, Mohit and Padma. 14. At all times, Nisha, Mohit and Padma had actual knowledge that Toledo was operating under the mistaken belief that Nisha was a credible expert in fine Indian jewelry, and that the items Toledo bought were genuine antiques and one-of-a-kind items of substantial value. 15. Nisha, Mohit and Padma, who obviously had knowledge of the true facts (that their representations were complete lies), concealed the truth from Toledo and knowingly and intentionally sought to deceive her for Defendants own gain. 16. In sum, Defendants while telling Toledo, u r loved by many incl us all manipulated her into placing a family-like trust in them and then, without a shred of decency, betrayed that trust to extract over $1 million from her to fund their extravagant lifestyle. 17. Sonia Toledo now brings this fraud action against Nisha, Mohit and Padma, and the entities they used to perpetrate their scam and shelter their ill-gotten gains, to right the wrong caused by Defendants depraved and malicious conduct. 3 4 of 47
PARTIES 18. Plaintiff Sonia M. Toledo has a home address at 1 West 67th Street, Apt. 316, New York, New York 10023. 19. Defendant Nisha Sabharwal has a home address at 225 East 49th Street, Suite 29A, New York, NY 10017, and a winter home at 35 Watergate Drive, Ritz Tower Residences, Apt. 1604, Sarasota, Florida 34236. She lives in these homes with Mohit and Padma. 1 20. Defendant Mohit Sabharwal is Nisha s husband and shares with her and Padma the homes in New York City and Sarasota, Florida. 21. Defendant Padma Deogun is Nisha s mother and lives with Nisha and Mohit at both the New York city location and at their home in Sarasota, Florida. 22. Defendant Vastra Inc. is a New York Domestic Business Corporation with an address at: c/o Mohit Sabharwal, 225 East 49th Street, Suite 29F, New York, New York 10017. 23. Defendant Peacock Throne LLC is a New York Domestic LLC with an address at: c/o Nisha Sabharwal, 255 East 49th Street, Suite 29A, New York, New York 10017. 24. Defendant OM Vastra LLC is a Florida LLC with a principal address located at Nisha s, Mohit s and Padma s Florida residence 35 Watergate Drive, Ritz Tower Residences, Apt. 1604, Sarasota, Florida 34236. 25. Defendant OM Vastra Miami LLC is a Florida LLC with a principal address of 3400 SW 27 Avenue, Unit 707, Miami, Florida 33133 which, upon information and belief, is another residence owned by Nisha and Mohit. 1 Nisha and Mohit, directly or indirectly, own all but one of the apartments on the 29th Floor at 225 East 49th Street in New York City. Nisha, Mohit and Padma live in certain of these interconnected apartments. Similarly, Nisha and Mohit, directly or indirectly, own two apartments on the same floor of the residential building at 35 Watergate Drive in Sarasota, Florida. Nisha, Mohit and Padma live in these apartments during the winter. 4 5 of 47
26. Nisha and Mohit own and control each of these entities Vastra, Peacock Throne, Om Vastra and OM Vastra Miami (among others, upon information and belief). Nisha and Mohit use these entities interchangeably in furtherance of their family s fraudulent enterprise. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 27. This Court has jurisdiction, and New York County is the appropriate venue, because Defendants, individually and/or collectively, have at all relevant times transacted business here; the majority of the claims asserted herein arose here; Plaintiff s damages were suffered in substantial part here; Plaintiff and the individual Defendants maintain a residence here; and Vastra and Peacock Throne have a principal place of business here. FACTS Sonia Toledo Meets Nisha Sabharwal 28. After growing up in Puerto Rico, Sonia Toledo left her home and family to pursue an education in the northeast and, thereafter, relocated to New York City. 29. Over time, she became a successful photographer and financial executive, meeting new friends and colleagues along the way. 30. Ms. Toledo met Nisha Sabharwal in June 2012 at the home of one of Toledo s friends who had hosted her on a trip to India that year this friend, as it turned out, is Nisha s aunt and Padma s sister. 31. At or around the time they were introduced, Nisha learned of Toledo s professional career and interests in India, art and special, meaningful jewelry. 32. Nisha immediately identified Toledo as a target for Nisha s con-of-choice: selling cheap, knock off jewelry for grossly inflated prices based on false representations as to the items origin, authenticity, composition and value. 5 6 of 47
33. To that end, she promptly began efforts to gain Toledo s trust. 34. On or about June 21, 2012, Nisha hosted Toledo for the first of many lunches at Nisha s New York apartment (they would occur on a nearly weekly basis). At that meeting (and the many thereafter), Nisha pretended she was interested in a genuine friendship with Toledo. 35. In reality, however, Nisha s feigned affection and empathy were for the sole purpose of drawing Toledo into a fraud. To that end, Nisha immediately sought to establish her credibility and trustworthiness by portraying herself (falsely) as having an expertise in valuable, antique Indian jewelry. 36. More specifically, Nisha represented that she had connections with the social elite in India, and had exclusive access to antique and valuable, one-of-a-kind items of jewelry. 37. These representations were knowingly false when made and were made with the specific intent to induce Toledo to purchase fake jewelry from Nisha. 38. At that first lunch meeting on or about June 21, 2012 (and at the many thereafter), Nisha presented Toledo with items of jewelry that Nisha claimed were valuable antiques. 39. Nisha sought to demonstrate her supposed expertise and superior knowledge by purporting to critique the quality of workmanship and of the stones. 40. One of the items Nisha presented to Toledo on or about June 21, 2012, was a bracelet made of black string. Nisha represented that day that the bracelet contained an authentic and valuable ruby. Moreover, aware of Toledo s interest in special, meaningful jewelry items, Nisha represented that the bracelet was made by a monk and thus had spiritual significance. Nisha represented that the bracelet had substantial value and that, if Toledo liked it, she needed to buy it immediately because the seller was returning to India. 6 7 of 47
41. Toledo had no reason to doubt Nisha s claimed connections or expertise, as Toledo has no expertise in jewelry or special knowledge of antique jewels. Nor did Toledo have reason to doubt the sincerity of Nisha s claimed interest in a genuine friendship. 42. On or about June 28, 2012, during her second lunch at Nisha s home, Toledo purchased the authentic ruby bracelet made by the monk for $1,800, in express reliance on Nisha s representations. 43. As it turned out, contrary to Nisha s representations, this bracelet does not contain a ruby. It is a cheap plastic knock-off worth $129 (as recently appraised), and that value is mostly attributable to diamond beads Toledo added after purchasing the item from Nisha. 44. Indeed, Nisha s representations about this ruby bracelet made by a monk were knowingly false when made and intended to induce Toledo s reliance thereon. 45. While Nisha s sale of the knock-off ruby bracelet for $1,800 was, in the scheme of things, a relatively modest swindle, Nisha saw in it confirmation that her ruse was working. She saw that her family could defraud Toledo out of far greater sums of money. 46. To do that, however, Nisha and her family would have to gain Toledo s complete trust. And Nisha quickly figured out how she, Mohit and Padma would accomplish that. 47. Indeed, upon learning that Toledo lacked family in New York (family she wished she had), Defendants plan for drawing her in was simple: they would give her that family. 48. Nisha, Mohit and Padma knew that, with a family-like level of trust in place, they could carry out a sustained, profitable fraud against Toledo, indefinitely into the future. 7 8 of 47
Nisha, Mohit and Padma Make Toledo Family While Stealing Over $1 Million from Her 49. As described below, Nisha, Mohit and Padma conducted a stunning, nearly fiveyear campaign of cold-hearted deception and lies that defrauded Toledo out of her own family jewelry and over $1 million that went to fund Defendants extravagant lifestyle. Defendants Fraudulent Conduct in 2012 50. After meeting Toledo in summer 2012 and throughout that year, Nisha hosted Toledo for lunch on a nearly weekly basis. Padma was at most of those lunches and regularly took part in the discussions, including about jewelry. She and Nisha, while conning Toledo into paying a fortune for cheap knock-offs, told her how beautiful she looked wearing them. 51. Also, Nisha, Mohit and Padma regularly invited Toledo for dinner at their home. 52. During this time, Nisha cultivated the illusion of a close, personal relationship down to every last detail, including by calling Toledo babe, sweety, doll, etc. 53. Meanwhile, Defendants efforts to sell Toledo cheap knock-offs, represented as authentic, one-of-a-kind items of valuable jewelry, were well underway. 54. For example, in July 2012, Nisha showed Toledo certain necklaces that she represented were gold and contained authentic and valuable ruby and sapphire stones. As she often did, Nisha represented that the items were most valuable when purchased as a set. 55. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay $13,000 for the two necklaces. 2 2 As part of Defendants fraud, Nisha allowed Toledo have an account with Nisha. This account enabled Toledo to finance her purchases from Nisha instead of paying for an item immediately, Nisha would just add it to Toledo s account and she would take as long as needed to pay it off. To pay down this account, many payments were made not only in cash, but also by checks to Vastra, Peacock Throne and third parties, as described more particularly below. 8 9 of 47
56. However, the stones are synthetic and the items are not valuable antiques. They have recently been appraised at $220. 57. In or around September 2012, Toledo told Nisha that Toledo wished to find a pendant to set on her grandmother s 18 carat gold chain. In 2004, this gold chain and accompanying medallion appraised at $600. Nisha stated (falsely) she needed to borrow the chain to confirm that the length was appropriate for the pendant. 58. As Nisha intended when she made that knowingly false representation, Toledo relied on it and allowed Nisha to borrow the chain. 59. However, Toledo has recently learned that, rather than returning her grandmother s chain, Nisha stole it and, in its place, returned a yellow metal necklace worth $40. 60. In or about late November / early December 2012, Nisha showed Toledo a ring that Nisha represented (falsely) was a genuine antique containing valuable amethyst, ruby, white topaz and emerald stones. 61. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay $6,000 for the ring, plus $190 to have it resized. 62. The amethyst, topaz and emerald stones are glass and the ruby stones are synthetic. The ring is not valuable but instead, has recently been appraised at $85. 63. In fall 2012, Nisha first introduced a story that, as demonstrated below, would become a central part of her fraud. In particular, Nisha represented that she was personal friends with an Indian princess who was cash-strapped and interested in selling her spectacular, antique jewelry valuable, one-of-a-kind family heirlooms from her personal collection to which Nisha claimed she had exclusive access. 9 10 of 47
64. These representations were knowingly false when made and were made with the specific intent to induce Toledo to purchase fake jewelry from Nisha. 65. In fall 2012, Nisha showed Toledo a necklace that Nisha represented was from the Indian princess and was a genuine, antique necklace made of ruby stones and gold. 66. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay $35,000 for the necklace. 67. However, the necklace contained glass-filled, rather than authentic, rubies and was made with gold-plated sterling silver rather than gold. Moreover, the necklace was not old, nor was it a valuable antique from an Indian princess. It was recently appraised at $2,500. 68. In December 2012, Nisha, Mohit and Padma invited Toledo to stay with them at their winter home in Saratoga, Florida. Toledo booked flights and Nisha responded by email on December 26, 2012: Cant wait to c u in jan and missing our lunches and chats. She later emailed Toledo, Love u and dying to c u. 69. By the end of 2012, Defendants had fraudulently induced Toledo to pay them and their entities an estimated nearly $200,000 based on knowingly false representations, pretenses and lies, all of which were specifically intended to induce Toledo s reliance on them. 70. These fraudulently induced payments to Defendants in 2012 included an estimated $75,500 in combined cash payments, a check to Vastra for $8,166, a check to MK Jewelers for $5,000, a check to MK Jewelers for $6,200, a check to Vintage for $16,000, and a check to Vastra for $87,000. The third-party checks were issued at Nisha s direction. 10 11 of 47
Defendants Fraudulent Conduct in 2013 71. In January 2013, Toledo went to Florida to stay with Nisha, Mohit and Padma at their invitation. While there, Nisha, Mohit and Padma hosted a dinner party, at which they acted proud and excited to introduce Toledo to their Florida friends. 72. On January 20, 2013, while at the Sabharwals Florida home, Toledo admired a ring that Nisha was wearing that appeared to contain a topaz stone. Nisha represented to Toledo (falsely) that the ring was a valuable item from the personal collection of the Indian princess, that Nisha had matching earrings with topaz stones, also from the Indian princess, and that the ring with the topaz stone and matching earrings were old, valuable, one-of-a-kind antiques. 73. As Nisha intended when she made these knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay $12,400 for the ring and $13,900 for the earrings. 74. That same day, Nisha showed Toledo another pair of earrings that Nisha also represented (falsely) were valuable, one-of-a-kind antiques from the Indian princess and contained authentic, old ruby stones. 75. As Nisha intended when she made these knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay $12,800 for them. 76. However, the ruby stones in the earrings are glass-filled and not antiques. While the topaz ring and topaz earrings contain topaz, they are not old, antique or one-of-a-kind items from any princess. These items, for which Toledo paid $39,100, have a value of $7,650. 77. Thereafter, the lunches and dinners with Nisha, Mohit and Padma continued. 78. On or about March 29, 2013, during a dinner with Nisha, Mohit and Padma at their apartment, Nisha showed Toledo earrings that Nisha represented (falsely) contained genuine and valuable amethyst and white topaz stones. 11 12 of 47
79. As Nisha intended when she made these knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay $5,900 for the earrings. 80. The amethyst stones are synthetic and the white topaz stone is cubic zirconia. The earrings are not valuable but, as a recent appraisal has shown, have a value of $185. 81. At around this time, Nisha often wrote to Toledo, i miss you and sent her love, as did Mohit. 82. By email on September 11, 2013, Mohit told Toledo: you are family. 83. Of course, during 2013 (and thereafter), Mohit and his family continued their unrelenting scheme to defraud Toledo. 84. For example, on or about May 17, 2013, during another dinner with Nisha, Mohit and Padma at their apartment, Nisha showed Toledo a topaz bangle that Nisha represented (falsely) was from the Indian princess, and was a genuine, one-of-a-kind antique (that, along with previously purchased topaz ring and earrings, competed a set). 85. As Nisha intended when she made these knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay Nisha $34,000 for the bangle. 86. However, the bangle is not old or one-of-a-kind, and is not from the personal collection of an Indian princess. The bangle has a recently appraised value of $7,000. 87. As another example, on or about June 21, 2013, during a lunch with Nisha and Padma at their apartment, Nisha showed Toledo a bangle and earrings that Nisha represented (falsely) were from the personal collection of the Indian princess. Nisha represented that both items were old, one-of-a-kind antiques made of emerald stones and that the bangle was gold. 12 13 of 47
88. As Nisha intended when she made these knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay Nisha $35,000 for the bangle and $17,500 for the earrings for a total of $52,500. 89. The items are not one-of-a-kind antiques or old. The emeralds are low quality and the bangle is made of yellow metal, not gold. The items together have a value of $1,805. 90. On or about June 26, 2013, during Padma s birthday celebration, Nisha showed Toledo earrings that Nisha wanted Toledo to wear at the party, and represented (falsely) that they contained genuine turquoise and ruby stones. 91. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay Nisha $8,800 for them. 92. However, the items are not genuine. Much of the turquoise and all of the rubies are synthetic. The earrings have a value of $100. 93. In November 2013, Nisha showed Toledo a bangle, or cuff, that Nisha represented (falsely) was a valuable antique of ruby stones and gold from the Indian princess and was one of a pair that the seller would not break up. When Toledo stated she could not afford both, Nisha represented (falsely) that she would buy one so Toledo could have hers. 94. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay Nisha $55,000 for the cuff. 95. However, the bangle is not a valuable antique from an Indian princess. It is not gold and the rubies are glass-filled. The items have a value of $2,970. 96. Also in early November 2013, Toledo showed Nisha high-quality diamonds that Toledo owned, including a family engagement ring, a tear-shaped diamond pendant, and her mother s wedding ring. These diamonds together had been appraised at approximately $24,000. 13 14 of 47
97. In early November 2013, Nisha falsely told Toledo that Nisha would redesign the diamonds into a necklace using white topaz stones and very rare carved Columbian emeralds that she claimed to have acquired a long time ago. Nisha represented (falsely) that these rare carved Columbian emeralds were very valuable. 98. Padma was present for these conversations (as she was for many), participated in them, and knew that the representations about the necklace were false. 99. On or about November 15, 2013, Nisha charged Toledo $39,450 for the necklace. 100. In supposedly creating the necklace for Toledo, Nisha and Padma swapped out Toledo s diamonds and replaced them with cubic zirconia. The rare Colombian emeralds are glass. The topaz stones were also cubic zirconia. Indeed, Nisha and Padma simply stole Toledo s valuable diamonds and gave her junk in return. 101. The necklace they delivered to Toledo was appraised in 2017 for $125. 3 102. During 2013, Nisha and her family extracted approximately $195,000 in fraudulent payments from Toledo through malicious lies and deception. 103. These fraudulently induced payments in 2013, including to pay down Toledo s account, included (without limitation) a combined $163,300 in cash, a $4,700 check to Panama Diamond Company, a $6,500 check to MK Jewelers, a $3,000 check to MK Jewelers, another $3,000 check to MK Jewelers, a $6,000 check to Hari, a $1,000 check to cash and a $6,500 check to Jehangir Khan. The checks were issued at Nisha s direction. 4 3 4 This is just one example of Defendants ploy to defraud Toledo by falsely representing they would redesign her own jewelry. For additional examples, see below, 185 219. The $4,700 check and a $15,300 payment were for shawls and the $6,500 check was for a sari all purchased from Nisha based on her representation that they were rare antiques. 14 15 of 47
Defendants Fraudulent Conduct in 2014 104. New Year 2014 came with a shower of affection from Nisha to Toledo, with Nisha texting Toledo (for example) Happy happy [new year] doll love u, Ok Babe. Love you, and later, love u pal. 105. On or about January 9, 2014, during a lunch with Nisha and Padma at their apartment, Nisha told Toledo that Nisha had found earrings that Nisha represented (falsely) were made of blue sapphire stones, yellow sapphire stones and diamonds. 106. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay Nisha $18,000 for the earrings. 107. The earrings do not contain blue sapphire, yellow sapphire or diamonds and have recently been appraised at $50. 108. In February 2014, Nisha, Mohit and Padma again invited their dear pal, Sonia Toledo, to come stay with them at their Florida home. 109. While appearing to welcome Toledo in like the family they said she was, Defendants were hard at work defrauding her. Indeed, Nisha, Mohit and Padma fraudulently induced Toledo into several purchases while she was a guest in their Florida home. 110. For example, on February 9, 2014, Nisha showed Toledo a set of earrings and represented (falsely) that they contained genuine blue and white topaz stones. 111. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay $26,000 for the topaz earrings. 112. However, while the topaz earrings contain real blue topaz, the white topaz is cubic zirconia. The earrings have a value of $350. 15 16 of 47
113. Also during Toledo s February 2014 stay with Nisha, Mohit and Padma at their Florida home (February 7 9), Toledo admired snake earrings in Nisha s closet. 114. Shortly thereafter, in late February 2014, Nisha told Toledo (falsely) that Nisha had found snake earrings from the personal collection of the Indian princess. 115. In late February 2014, after Toledo returned from the Sabharwal s Florida home, she agreed to pay $7,600 for the earrings in reliance on Nisha s knowingly false representations. 116. Then, on or about March 21, 2014, during a lunch with Nisha and Padma at their apartment, Nisha represented to Toledo (falsely) that Nisha had found more snake-inspired items from the collection of the princess, and that the snakes could be made into necklaces like the ones the princess had worn. Nisha also represented (falsely) that all the snakes were one-of-akind, old antique items that had to be used together because they were part of the princess s original collection and could not be broken up. 117. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and on or about March 21, 2014 agreed to pay $150,000 for two necklaces with the antique snakes. On or about March 31, 2014, at Nisha s direction, Toledo wrote a check to Vastra for $90,000. 118. However, the earrings and necklace were not one-of-a-kind, antique items from an Indian princess. The items have a combined value of $17,500, as recently appraised. 119. Toledo further paid down the $150,000 purchase price with a $41,000 wire transfer sent on April 8, 2014, to Naples Motorsports, at per wire instructions sent by Mohit. Mohit knew, when he sent Toledo these instructions, that the payment was fraudulently induced. 120. On or about June 25, 2014, Toledo was a special guest at Padma s birthday party. 16 17 of 47
121. On or about July 31, 2014, during a lunch with Nisha and Padma at their apartment, Toledo agreed to let Nisha redesign a beautiful and valuable citrine pendant from India into a striking diamond and citrine ring, as Nisha (falsely) represented to Toledo. 122. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay $25,600 for this ring (along with another topaz ring that Nisha faked). To pay that amount, Toledo wrote a check to Vastra at Nisha s direction. 123. However, the diamonds Nisha used were cubic zirconia. The value of the ring is $1,075, which is based largely on the value of the citrine Toledo provided in the first place. 124. Of course, the regular lunches and dinners at their apartment continued. Emblematic of Nisha s campaign of manipulation, on August 8, 2014, she texted Toledo: Babe can we do lunch on Monday? Missing you. 125. Over the course of 2014, Nisha, Mohit and Padma extracted over $400,000 in fraudulent payments from Toledo. These payments, including to pay down Toledo s account, included (without limitation) a combined $188,500 in cash, a check for $29,396.25 to Peacock Throne, a check for $22,402.50 to Peacock Throne, a check for $90,000 to Vastra, a $41,000 wire transfer to Naples Motorsports, a check for $2,430 to MK Jewelers, a check for $25,600 to Vastra, a check for $5,400 to Vastra and a check to Padma for $960. The third-party checks were issued at Nisha s direction. 17 18 of 47
Defendants Fraudulent Conduct in 2015 126. Having swindled Toledo for over $400,000 in 2014, Nisha texted Toledo on February 12, 2015: u r loved by many incl us all. 127. As Toledo had gone a time without making a purchase from Nisha, Nisha sought to shore up the relationship by writing to Toledo on February 18, 2015: I really consider you amongst my best friend and you ve been a great support to me while i was sick. I respect your mind and I have shared so many things with you and you with me.... I love you, please write and tell me that things are fine between us. Nisha asked Toledo if they could have lunch in New York in early march. 128. Of course, Nisha, Mohit and Padma continued to host Toledo for countless lunches and dinners and included her in important family events and holidays. 129. In May 2015, Nisha represented to Toledo (falsely) that Nisha would design a certain Ganesha elephant charm necklace for Toledo and that she would use gold-plated chain and emerald and diamond stones. 130. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay Nisha $11,700 for the necklace. 131. The necklace was not gold-plated, but made of a yellow metal. The diamonds are cubic zirconia and the emeralds are green glass. It has been recently appraised for $165. 132. On or about June 23, 2015, Toledo was a guest at Padma s birthday lunch, and Toledo actually hosted a birthday dinner for Padma on or about June 24, 2015. 133. Of course, the fraud continued. For example, on or about June 30, 2015, during a lunch with Nisha and Padma at their apartment, Padma purported to give Toledo a pendant that, according to Nisha s (false) representations, contained topaz stones and was from Padma s personal collection. Nisha and Padma claimed that the pendant needed to be set on a necklace, 18 19 of 47
and said that Nisha would handle the design work which, of course, Toledo had to pay for. That same day, Nisha claimed (falsely) that she had found the perfect topaz chain for the necklace. 5 134. As Nisha intended when she made those knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay $5,300 for the topaz necklace. 135. Contrary to Nisha and Padma s representations, however, the entire necklace is made of glass, not topaz. It has a recently appraised value of $110. 136. In late September 2015, Nisha represented to Toledo (falsely) that Nisha had found the perfect white and blue topaz bangle to match that topaz necklace. 137. On or about October 22, 2015, Toledo, as Nisha intended, relied on Nisha s knowingly false representations and agreed to pay $5,000 for the bangle. 138. The bangle is cubic zirconia, not white topaz, and was recently appraised at $550. 139. Toledo was then a special guest of the Sabharwals for Thanksgiving 2015 at their Florida home. During this trip, Toledo paid Defendants $12,000 to pay down her account. 140. After this trip, Toledo wrote to thank Nisha and Mohit for sharing their beautiful home and family. In response on November 29, 2015, Nisha told Toledo: U r part of r lives. (Mohit added: thx for sharing wk-end with us! Safe travels and c u back here soon! ) 141. Mohit was aware of the fraud underway against Toledo, substantially assisted it and actively sought to conceal it, upon information and belief. He was present during many of the discussions between Nisha and Toledo regarding jewelry and participated in some of them. 142. Moreover, Mohit (along with Nisha) was instrumental in setting up the various entities that he and Nisha dominate for the sole purpose of perpetrating the family fraud against 5 This pendant was one of several gifts that Defendants purported to give Toledo that were merely a ploy to defraud her. For additional examples, see below, 165 184. 19 20 of 47
unsuspecting victims, including Toledo. Mohit was also intimately involved with handling the proceeds of Defendants fraud. For example, he purported to calculate tax on fraudulent transactions, and accepted fraudulently induced payments at Peacock Throne. 143. During 2015, Nisha, Mohit and Padma fraudulently extracted approximately $188,270 from Toledo. These payments, including to pay down Toledo s account, included (without limitation) a combined $138,270 in cash and a check for $50,000 to Vastra, which Toledo paid at Nisha s direction. Defendants Fraudulent Conduct in 2016 144. During 2016, Toledo s purchases lessened while she focused on paying down her account. Of course, with the money flowing, Defendants continued to treat Toledo like family. 145. For example, on July 13, 2016, Toledo hosted a special dinner for Padma s birthday, and on July 14, 2016, Nisha texted Toledo: U r family. 146. In September 2016, Toledo treated Nisha and her family to dinner to celebrate Nisha s birthday, with Nisha thereafter texting Toledo on November 3, 2016: Love u pal. 147. During 2016, Nisha, Mohit and Padma fraudulently extracted another approximately $150,000 from Toledo. These payments included (without limitation) a combined $126,000 in cash, a check for $3,810.63 to a third-party and a $19,000 check to Indogans. The third-party checks were issued at Nisha s direction. Defendants Fraudulent Conduct in 2017 148. Toledo paid Nisha another $12,000 in January 2017. 149. However, in early March 2017, Toledo was shocked to read stories in the press about a recently filed lawsuit against Nisha, Mohit and certain of their entities. The suit accused 20 21 of 47
them of perpetrating an $18 million jewelry fraud, largely by selling knock-offs misrepresented as authentic, antique and valuable pieces, including some from an Indian princess. 150. Toledo came to fear the worst: that the people who had taken her in, called her family and expressed their friendship and love for her, had actually engaged in a depraved duplicity and swindled her for over $1 million. 151. Toledo thus had the jewelry she purchased from Nisha and her family appraised. The appraisals, as noted above, revealed that the items bought are nearly all junk. 152. After Toledo learned in early 2017 that she was a victim of Defendants vicious fraud, Padma repeatedly tried to convince Toledo not to take action against Padma and her family. 153. Of course, Padma was at all times fully involved in the fraud and actively sought to conceal it. She was present during the vast majority of the discussions between Nisha and Toledo regarding jewelry, participating in them freely. She regularly urged Toledo to try on the (fake) jewelry and, when she did, Padma complimented Toledo on how good she looked. 154. Moreover, Padma was instrumental in sourcing fake jewelry from India that Defendants pawned off on their victims, including Toledo, upon information and belief. 155. Padma also accepted fraudulent payments from Toledo, including of $30,000 in cash that Toledo gave Padma on April 17, 2013, that she then brought to Florida. Padma knew this payment was fraudulently induced at the time she accepted it, upon information and belief. 156. Padma was also instrumental in Defendants efforts to make Toledo feel like family. As Padma was well aware, she had a motherly relationship with Toledo, which Padma exploited in furtherance of the fraud. To that end, Padma sent Toledo text messages and emails, gave her gifts and involved her in family birthday celebrations. 21 22 of 47
157. With respect to each such sale of jewelry that Nisha and/or Padma represented was an authentic, antique item of Indian jewelry of substantial value (including but not limited to jewelry supposedly from the personal collection of an Indian princess), Nisha and/or Padma had actual knowledge at the time she/they made those representations as to the composition, authenticity, origin and value of the jewelry that those representations were false. 158. With respect to false representations made by Nisha, her co-conspirators Padma and Mohit had knowledge of those representations and their falsity and, with respect to them, actively concealed their falsity from Toledo with the intent that she rely on them. 159. With respect to false representations made by Padma, her co-conspirators Nisha and Mohit had knowledge of those representations and their falsity and, with respect to them, actively concealed their falsity from Toledo with the intent that she rely on them. 160. Via their campaign of lies and deception detailed herein, Nisha, Mohit and Padma purposefully and with fraudulent intent induced Toledo to rely on their false representations and to purchase the items of jewelry and make payments to them under false pretenses. 161. With respect to each such sale of jewelry, Toledo reasonably relied on those false representations and believed that the jewelry she purchased had the composition that Nisha and her family represented it did, came from the source they represented it came from, and that it was an authentic, old, valuable, one-of-a-kind antique. 162. With respect to each such sale, Nisha, Mohit and Padma had actual knowledge that Toledo was proceeding under the mistaken belief that the jewelry she purchased had the composition that Nisha and her family represented it did, came from the source they represented it came from, and that it was an authentic, old, valuable, one-of-a-kind antique. 22 23 of 47
163. Nisha, Mohit and Padma, who obviously had knowledge of the true facts (that their representations as to the origin, composition, authenticity and value of the jewelry were complete lies), at no time apprised Toledo of the truth and, instead, knowingly and intentionally deceived her for their own financial gain. 164. Were it not for Nisha s and/or Padma s false representations as to the origin, composition, authenticity and value of the items (and Defendants knowing concealment of the falsity of those representations), Toledo never would have purchased any items of jewelry from Defendants, let alone at the prices she paid. The Sabharwals Perpetrate a Different Ploy Against Toledo This one Involving Gifts 165. The fraudulent scheme that Nisha, Mohit and Padma perpetrated against their friend and family member, Sonia Toledo, included other opportunistic swindles as well. 166. In particular, Nisha, Mohit and Padma gave Toledo, as purported gifts, jewelry that Nisha and Padma represented were valuable items from Padma s personal collection. However, according to Nisha and Padma, these items needed to be redesigned in order to make the items wearable. And to do that, Nisha and Padma claimed that Toledo just needed to pay for this redesign work. Since Nisha would oversee the redesign work, Toledo was directed to make the payment to Nisha. 167. Nisha s and Padma s representations regarding these gifts were knowingly false when made. The gifts were not authentic, valuable pieces from Padma s personal collection. They were cheap knock-offs with little-to-no value. And the payments supposedly for this redesign work went to fund Defendants extravagant lifestyle. 168. For example, on or about August 13, 2014, during lunch with Nisha and Padma at their apartment, Nisha represented to Toledo (falsely) that Padma wanted to give Toledo, as a 23 24 of 47
gift, a valuable pendant from Padma s personal collection and that Nisha would design a necklace using the gifted pendant set in emerald stones. Nisha represented to Toledo (falsely) that the pendant was very valuable, though no price was ascribed to it. It was put on Toledo s account with the understanding that a price would be discussed later and Toledo would pay it. 169. On June 9, 2016, in reliance on Nisha s and Padma s representations, Toledo made a payment of $7,228 for the necklace, via check to an entity called Indogans. (The check was in the amount of $19,000, and included payment for other items.) 170. In connection with this necklace, during that lunch on or about August 13, 2014, Nisha represented (falsely) that she made a pair of matching earrings containing emerald stones and diamonds. 171. As Nisha and Padma intended, Toledo relied on their knowingly false representations and agreed to pay $5,400 for those earrings. Toledo gave Nisha a check for that amount, payable to Vastra, during a lunch on or about August 27, 2014. 172. However, the pendant is cheap black enamel and cubic zirconia. The earrings are not diamonds, but cubic zirconia. The items have been recently appraised at a combined $668. 173. By way of another example, on or about October 2, 2015, Padma and Nisha said (falsely) that Padma wished to give Toledo a gold pendant from her collection, but that the pendant needed to be set on a necklace. Nisha represented (falsely), in Padma s presence, that she would set the pendant in topaz and gold beads. 174. Nisha also represented (falsely) on or about October 2, 2015 that she had made earrings to match and that the earrings were made of topaz stones and diamonds. 175. As Nisha and Padma intended, Toledo relied on their knowingly false representations and agreed to pay them $7,800 for the necklace and $1,975 for the earrings. 24 25 of 47
176. However, the necklace is made of plastic and yellow metal beads, with a value of $15. The earrings are made of glass beads and cubic zirconia, with a value of $45. 177. With respect to each gift to Toledo, Nisha, Mohit and Padma had actual knowledge at the time it was given that it was not an authentic, valuable item from Padma s collection but, rather, was a cheap knock-off of little-to-no value, and that their representations to Toledo as to the composition, origin, authenticity and value of such item were false. 178. With respect to false representations made by Nisha, her co-conspirators Padma and Mohit had knowledge of those representations and their falsity and, with respect to them, actively concealed their falsity from Toledo with the intent that she rely on them. 179. With respect to false representations made by Padma, her co-conspirators Nisha and Mohit had knowledge of those representations and their falsity and, with respect to them, actively concealed their falsity from Toledo with the intent that she rely on them. 180. Via their campaign of lies and deception detailed herein, Nisha, Mohit and Padma purposefully and with fraudulent intent induced Toledo to rely on those false representations and make payments to them supposedly for redesigning a valuable item of jewelry. 181. With respect to each such gift, Toledo relied on those false representations and reasonably believed that the items of jewelry being gifted to her were authentic, valuable items from Padma s personal collection. 182. With respect to each such gift, Nisha, Mohit and Padma had actual knowledge that Toledo was proceeding under the mistaken belief that each such gifted piece of jewelry was, in fact, an authentic and valuable item from Padma s personal collection that merely required redesign work to be wearable. 25 26 of 47
183. Nisha, Mohit and Padma, who obviously had knowledge of the true facts (that Nisha s and Padma s representations as to the gift and the redesign work were complete lies), at no time apprised Toledo of the truth and, instead, knowingly and intentionally concealed it so as to deceive her for their own financial gain. 184. Were it not for Defendants false representations as to the origin, composition, authenticity and value of the gifted items (and Defendants knowing concealment of the falsity of those representations), Toledo never would have made payments to Defendants supposedly for redesigning those items. Nisha, Mohit and Padma Defraud Toledo of her Own Family Jewelry 185. Nisha, Mohit and Padma defrauded Toledo in yet another way this one perhaps the cruelest of all. Upon viewing Toledo s family jewelry, including her family heirlooms of both monetary and sentimental value, Nisha declared that none of it was styled properly. Nisha represented to Toledo that Nisha could have the items re-styled to make them wearable. Of course, Toledo merely had to pay the redesign costs. 186. Thereafter, Toledo entrusted numerous family heirlooms to Nisha to redesign and return, paying Nisha by the job. However, Nisha then redesigned Toledo s jewelry by adding fake, imitation stones instead of the valuable jewels she promised. In many cases, moreover, Nisha actually stripped Toledo s family heirlooms of their valuable jewels, replacing them with fakes or imitation stones (e.g., she swapped out real diamonds for cubic zirconia) and adding additional fake or imitation stones. 187. Indeed, in many cases, Nisha stole for herself and her family the valuable jewels and stones from Toledo s family heirlooms, giving Toledo junk in its place. 26 27 of 47
188. In carrying out this fraudulent scheme, Nisha redesigned most of the jewelry that Toledo inherited from her mother and grandmother. 189. For example, in late November 2012, Nisha told Toledo that Nisha had a dream in which Toledo s late mother (she passed away in 2004) said she wanted her daughter to wear her valuable diamond solitaire ring and that she would like it redesigned with sapphires. 190. Nisha told Toledo that she would redesign Toledo s mother s diamond ring with sapphire stones, along with two bands to keep the ring from sliding off. 191. Toledo was concerned by the high price: $87,000, which included another small ruby ring which Nisha represented (falsely) to Toledo contained a pigeon blood red ruby the most desirable color from an antique ring. The price was justified, Nisha falsely claimed, because she used the best sapphires money could buy. 192. On or about December 10, 2012, as Nisha intended when she made her knowingly false representations, Toledo agreed to pay her $87,000, by check to Vastra. 193. However, Nisha did not use the best sapphires money could buy, but instead delivered to Toledo jewelry containing synthetic sapphires. The jewelry was appraised at $31,600, a value based almost entirely on the diamond ring Toledo gave Nisha in the first place. 194. Moreover, the ruby ring did not contain a pigeon blood red ruby the most desirable color from an antique ring. It contained an altered, glass-filled ruby. 195. By way of another example, on or about November 11, 2013, during lunch with Nisha and Padma at their apartment, Nisha and Toledo discussed her grandmother s antique bracelet, which Toledo had inherited from her mother. This bracelet, in 2004, was appraised at $7,500, with the appraisal noting the bracelet was antique and unreplaceable. Nisha 27 28 of 47
represented (falsely) that she would redesign the bracelet into a necklace, adding gold chain and additional valuable charms, including gold-plated charms, and create a bracelet to match. 196. As Nisha intended when she made her knowingly false representations, Toledo relied on them and agreed to pay Nisha $47,500 on or about November 15, 2013, and $8,900 on or about November 20, 2013 (during another lunch with Nisha and Padma at their apartment) a total of $56,400 paid for this redesigned necklace and bracelet. (The amounts were charged to Toledo s account, which she later paid.) 197. However, Nisha did not use gold chain and the charms on the necklace are junk. The matching bracelet Nisha designed is also junk the pearls are plastic stone, the jade is plastic, the coral is plastic and there is no gold-plating on the charms. The bracelet s recent appraised value is $75. 198. In essence, Toledo paid Nisha $56,400 to take a valuable and unreplaceable antique bracelet owned by Toledo s grandmother and meld it together with garbage, thereby destroying the monetary value of this antique item. Of course, as Nisha was fully aware, this important family heirloom had great sentimental value to Toledo. 199. By way of another example, on or about March 18, 2014, Toledo agreed to pay Nisha $11,500 to redesign a ring using certain topaz stones that a friend of Toledo s brought back to her from India. Nisha represented (falsely) that she would add diamonds to the ring. 200. Contrary to Nisha s knowingly false representations, a recent appraisal revealed that the diamonds are, in fact, cubic zirconia and the ring has a value of $365. 201. As another example, on or about June 18, 2014, during lunch with Nisha and Padma at their apartment, Nisha and Toledo agreed that, as Nisha represented (falsely), she would redesign Toledo s mother s emerald and ruby necklace to make it wearable by adding 28 29 of 47