Former Kia India workers, scrap dealers face probe over theft of 1,008 engines
Though the engines were worth only $2.3 million, the police investigation noted the case had 'widespread impact on industrial operations, stakeholder trust and employment security', and raised concerns about inter-state crime networks.
Kia in March complained to police in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh that a review of internal records found engines sourced from its sister carmaker, Hyundai, were missing and it suspected a conspiracy between past and present employees.
An initial police investigation found two former Kia India factory workers - a team leader and a head of section in the engine dispatch section - were involved in illegally transporting the engines from the factory using forged invoices and manipulated gate passes, according to an April 16 police document.
They worked with at least two other individuals who helped arrange transport, and two other scrap dealers who helped sell them to buyers as far away as the capital city New Delhi.
'The entire operation involved repeated illegal transactions, use of multiple trucks bearing manipulated or pseudo registration numbers,' Inspector K. Raghavan said in his investigation document dated April 16, seen by Reuters.
Kia cuts Sportage prices by up to Rs1.85mn in Pakistan
Raghavan declined to comment when contacted, citing confidentiality.
In a statement to Reuters, Kia India said it identified the discrepancies as it enhanced its inventory management processes last year. Kia India conducted an internal investigation, reported the case to police and was continuing to strengthen internal process governance and reinforce stringent monitoring systems, it added.
'Disappearance' of engines
The former head of the engine dispatch section at Kia's factory, Vinayagamoorthy Veluchamy, 37, is currently under arrest in custody, and has applied to the state High Court for bail, according to court papers seen by Reuters. He denied any involvement in the alleged thefts, the papers showed. He left the company in 2023.
The other Kia worker accused is 33-year-old former team leader Patan Saleem, who worked at the factory from 2020 to 2025, police documents showed. His whereabouts were not known and two phone numbers cited in the police document were not in service.
The two former employees are yet to be formally charged with any offence, but have been named as accused in the investigation, which is still in initial stages.
Given the 'high-level preplanning, internal access manipulation', they could face punishment of 10 years imprisonment or more under Indian laws if charged and convicted, the police document said.
While theft is relatively common in India, such large-scale, prolonged corporate-level cases such as the one involving Kia are rare.
Kia first reported the matter of the 'disappearance' of engines to police after stock reconciliation in January 2025, a month after it also found unauthorized vehicle movement in the factory's CCTV footage. Its March complaint put the missing engines number at 940, documents show.
Police recovered nine mobile phones containing WhatsApp screenshots, transport invoices and truck photos.
'The proceeds of crime were either spent on personal needs, clearing debts, purchasing immovable property or reinvested in businesses,' said the police document.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
US and India — strategic autonomy or alliance partnership
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam This piece attempts to deconstruct the imperatives of Sino-India bilateralism in the backdrop of US-China competition. In my piece, "War of Humiliation" in the South Asia magazine (November 2020), discussing the Sino-Indian escalation in Ladakh, I had concluded that expecting India to stand up to China as a bulwark, that the US continues to prop it, is too far-fetched. That China and India would never — willingly or unwillingly — walk into a full-blown war, that is in nobody's interest. If anyone expects India to stand upto to China — doing the US bidding — in a resurrected Great Game 2.0; then it is not knowing India of Chanakya Kautilya (375-283 BC). The wizard, also called Vishnugupta or the Indian Machiavelli, said: "Do not reveal what you have thought of doing... keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution." Fast forward to 2025, there is a lot of debate nudging India to be in a 'partnership alliance' with the US to counter China; as most analysts in the US/European camp, think India cannot do it alone. Some emphasise that 'strengthening Quad' (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising Australia, India, Japan and America) would be a good starting point for New Delhi. Realising that India is a 'hedging' middle power, eager to play both if not all sides, the US think-tanks deduce that transfer of more sophisticated and advanced technology to India would depend upon India's overt anti-Beijing credentials. The basic premise of such thinking is that a shooting Sino-Indian war is inevitable, and that militarily embroiling China through India is cost effective and makes strategic sense. This is a faulty presumption, just like encouraging Ukraine, a militarily weaker side, to go on the offensive against a militarily stronger Russia that was on the defensive, in the much-touted Ukrainian counter offensive in 2023, that failed. The recent chasm in the US-India relations emanate from India profiting from the Russian oil imports, debunking sanctions; Indian protectionism in trade against US agricultural products; Modi's refusal to acknowledge President Trump's role in the May 2025 Pakistan-India ceasefire; and the less than expected tenacity by India in the cited conflict. However, these are transient factors originating from the 'Trump Factor', who is in his last presidential term. There are compelling reasons for Washington to keep India in its orbit and repair the damaged relations, even if New Delhi is not very forthcoming. First, in the US strategic construct China, Iran, North Korea and Russia make a substantial 'authoritative scale (mass of alliance power)' presenting a unified challenge, needing a unified response. Moreover, China under President Xi has moved away from its confrontational 'wolf warrior' diplomacy, with emerging profile in the Global South, Africa in particular. Its BRI networks 126 countries through highways, railways, pipelines, power plants, grids, IT, social welfare and poverty-alleviation projects. BRI's staggering investment of over $1.3 trillion will ultimately cover 60% of the world population and 40% of its GDP, providing a viable economic alternative, catapulting the present US-led predatory economic system. Second, America's inability to compete with both China and Russia, requires 'strategic diplomacy', some US analysts emphasise. Its core purpose being 'cultivating favourable balances of power in critical regions' to project power far beyond material means. Strategic diplomacy aims to limit rival's options, without seeking to remove the sources of conflict. The US is moving past the age of 'globalized utopia', of being the single-most powerful hegemon, enjoying comprehensive security enabled by techno-military capabilities. It gravitates towards alliance partnerships and strategic diplomacy. And under its 'pivot to Asia' strategy, building the largest anti-China coalition, India stands out to bridge the gap between Washington's rhetoric and capabilities. US analysts feel Biden Administration was unable to properly cultivate New Delhi against Beijing. They feel Trump should nudge India closer 'as an ally on the level of Japan or NATO partners'. Will India do the US bidding willingly, under coercion or under inducements? The straight answer is no, under any conditions. Way back in a meeting with the US officials, when asked to analyse the US-India potential relationship, my answer was to 'go ahead and find out'. However, much that India will drag its feet on becoming involved in bloc politics, alliance partnership with the US, and ignore its 'strategic autonomy', Washington will persistently deploy the pressure-inducement combo to rope in New Delhi against China. Even if that means making India, as some suggest, a regional policeman and hegemon in South Asia, deferring to its advice and actions concerning other countries like Pakistan. The other touted US 'deputy sheriffs' to include Australia in Pacific Islands, Vietnam in continental Southeast Asia and Nigeria in Africa. Expecting India to go against one of its largest trading partners (despite an otherwise obscure border conflict), is not understanding geo-economics and history. First, Sino-India annual trade is over $100 for the third consecutive year. It was $124 billion for FY2024. Second, India has historically conceded against formidable adversaries, from Afghans to Moghuls to Portuguese to the British. That historic constant has not changed, Modi or no Modi. Third, militarily, Indian discussions concede China's conventional and nuclear advantage. India responds to this "conventional asymmetry" through infrastructural build-up, force modernisation and new raisings, compared to Beijing's better military infrastructure, capabilities, and logistics. The Indian security establishment remains concerned about greater survivability of Indian forces on the battlefield, in an environment of uncontrolled escalation, instead of investing in new weapon platforms especially the nuclear ones. However, paradoxically, the cited asymmetry also serves as a strong catalyst for peaceful co-existence. It is, therefore, no surprise that India gravitates towards better relations with Beijing under its 'Look East Policy', burnished by the recent chasm with Washington. When China's Foreign Minister, Wang Yi on August 18, 2025, during his two-day visit to New Delhi emphasised both nations to view each other as 'partners' and not 'adversaries or threats'; his Indian counterpart Jaishankar acknowledged the Chinese overtures, saying both countries were seeking to 'move ahead from a difficult period in our relations'. Wang met Premier Modi on Tuesday, reaffirming 'positive trend' in the bilateral ties. In sum, India it too smart to fall for the US trap.
Express Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
US sanctions four ICC judges, prosecutors over war crimes investigations
The International Criminal Court building is seen in The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: Reuters/ File US President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday imposed sanctions on two judges and two prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, as Washington ramped up its pressure on the war tribunal over its targeting of Israeli leaders and a past decision to investigate US officials. In a statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the court "a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare" against the United States and Israel. The move drew ire from France and the United Nations. Paris urged Washington to withdraw the sanctions, while the ICC said it deplored the designations, calling them "a flagrant attack" against the independence of an impartial judicial institution. Washington designated Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji, Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal, and Kimberly Prost of Canada, according to the US Treasury and State Department. All officials have been involved in cases linked to Israel and the United States. Also Read: Pakistan, China, Afghanistan forge deeper alliance with CPEC extension "United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC's politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach," Rubio said. "I urge countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to resist the claims of this bankrupt institution." The second round of sanctions comes less than three months after the administration took the unprecedented step of slapping sanctions on four separate ICC judges. The escalation will likely impede the functioning of the court and the prosecutor's office as they deal with major cases, including war crime allegations against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defense chief Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. In March 2020, prosecutors opened an investigation in Afghanistan that included looking into possible crimes by US troops, but since 2021, it has deprioritized the role of the US and focused on alleged crimes committed by the Afghan government and the Taliban forces. Read: India test-fires nuclear-capable Agni-5 missile amid US tariff tensions The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states or if a situation is referred by the UN Security Council. Although the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in its 125 member countries, some nations, including the US, China, Russia, and Israel, do not recognise its authority. It has high-profile war crimes investigations under way into the Israel-Hamas conflict, as well as in Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Venezuela. Undermining international justice Both France and the United Nations said the judges' work is crucial for international justice. "Their role is essential in the fight against impunity," a statement from the French Foreign Ministry said. The US sanctions undermine the foundation of international justice, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said, adding: "The (US) decision imposes severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor." Netanyahu's office issued a statement welcoming the US sanctions. The designations freeze any US assets the individuals may have and essentially cut them off from the US financial system. Guillou is an ICC judge who presided over a pre-trial panel that issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Khan and Niang are the court's two deputy prosecutors. Canadian Judge Kimberly Prost served on an ICC appeals chamber that, in March 2020, unanimously authorized the ICC prosecutor to investigate alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan since 2003, including examining the role of US service members. Also Read: Trump rules out US troops for Ukraine The Trump administration's dislike of the court goes back to his first term. In 2020, Washington imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court's work on Afghanistan. Countering Rubio's call to other countries to oppose the ICC, the court urged member states to stand in solidarity. "The Court calls upon States Parties and all those who share the values of humanity and the rule of law to provide firm and consistent support to the Court and its work carried out in the sole interest of victims of international crimes," it said.
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Sanctions-hit Indian refiner Nayara turns to dark fleet, tanker data shows
NEW DELHI: Indian refiner Nayara Energy, backed by Russia and under European Union sanctions, isrelying on a dark fleet to import oil and transport refined fuels, according to shipping reports and LSEG flows. Nayara, which controls about 8% of India's 5.2 million barrel-per-day refining capacity, has been struggling to transport fuel since being placed under EU sanctions in July, a move that prompted shippers to back out, forcing the refiner to cut its crude runs. India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, abides by UN sanctions and not unilateral actions, allowingrefiners to import oil and ship products in vessels also under EU sanctions. This month, Nayara has imported at least seven cargoes of Russian oil, including on sanctions-hit vessels Centurion, Mars 6, Pushpa, Horae and Devika, formerly known as Apar, according to shipping reports and LSEG data. All were carrying about 700,000 barrels of Russian flagship Urals crude, the data shows. India's Nayara exports first gasoline since sanctions, sources say Nayara did not respond to an email seeking comment. Prior to the sanctions, Nayara was selling about 70% of the refined fuels produced at its 400,000 bpd day Vadinar refinery in western Gujarat state through its local network of more than 6,600 fuel stations, and exporting the rest. Nayara, majority owned by Russian entities including Rosneft , is seeking government help to secure ships and maintain stable operations at the refinery, where it has cut runs to 70-80% of capacity. A shipping source said Indian lines that undertake overseas voyages are not willing to carry oil and refined products for Nayara, while an official at a company that regularly shipped Nayara's refined products said they could not get insurance cover for their vessels in such cases. Another shipping source said Russian entities were helping Nayara arrange ships. According to LSEG trade flows, the company has used the Next, Tempest Dream, Leruo, Nova, Varg, Sard and Uriel – all under EU sanctions - to ship refined fuels, mainly gasoline and gasoil. Some of the vessels were renamed after being placed under sanctions. Evgeniy Griva, Russia's deputy trade representative to India, on Wednesday said Nayara is getting oil supplies from Russian oil major Rosneft and is not facing problems.
