Bombay Clay Oven and Saucy Bombay, two Indian restaurants in the US state of Colorado have been accused of defrauding investors of $380,000 or Rs 3,16,56,926 by employing deceptive tactics, including “half-truths and lies,” to lure investors into their ambitious plans for a nationwide expansion. Both restaurants were under the ownership of The Bombay Group (TBG), which partnered with a securities broker named Michael Bissonnette. 

TBG, like many others in the competitive restaurant industry of the US, harboured aspirations of scaling their business into a national chain, potentially comprising hundreds or even thousands of outlets. Their strategy involved franchising Saucy Bombay, a newer venture, to capitalise on the burgeoning trend of fast-casual dining.

“The investors in this case really believed in The Bombay Group and their restaurant, Saucy Bombay,” remarked Tung Chan, the state’s securities commissioner. “But as we allege, the investors were not told the truth about the investments and they have not been paid back.”

The lawsuit alleges that TBG’s owners, Marshall and Rohini Miranda, along with Bissonnette, misled investors by portraying their investment as a secure and lucrative opportunity. The plan reportedly guaranteed substantial returns, with dividends as high as 2,900 per cent quarterly.

However, despite the promises, the sole location of Saucy Bombay eventually closed its doors by the end of 2015, unbeknownst to the investors. Despite the closure, funds continued to flow into TBG’s coffers throughout 2015 and 2016, allegedly diverted towards operational expenses, rent, and even self-commissions for selling its own stock. 

By the end of 2016, the invested capital had dwindled, with no returns forthcoming to the investors. Although a new Saucy Bombay location opened in 2018, it remained the sole outpost, and the grand franchising plans failed to materialise.

When local media contacted them for comment, both Bissonnette and Marshall Miranda refused to speak. 

Thursday’s ruling overturning Harvey Weinstein’s New York rape conviction gives the one-time film mogul a chance at a new trial and calls into question what evidence prosecutors can use in future sex crime cases.

Here is a look at what happened to the case, which helped define the #MeToo movement, and what might happen next.

WHY WAS WEINSTEIN’S CONVICTION OVERTURNED?

Weinstein, 72, was found guilty of raping one woman and sexually assaulting another after both testified in court.

But a 4-3 majority of the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, found that the trial judge should not have permitted three other women to testify that Weinstein had assaulted them as well because their allegations were not part of the criminal charges against him.

Such testimony about “prior bad acts” is usually barred by New York’s so-called Molineux rule, named for a landmark 1901 court case. The majority of the court found that the testimony by the three women ran afoul of the rule and made the trial unfair.

WHY WERE THE OTHER WOMEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THE FIRST PLACE?

The Molineux rule is not absolute. It holds that prosecutors cannot use such testimony to prove that the defendant has a “propensity” to commit crime, but they may use it as evidence of motive or intent.

In Weinstein’s case, prosecutors persuaded the trial judge that the producer’s alleged prior sexual assaults showed that he knew his accusers did not consent to his advances, but that he intended to force them into sex anyway.

Prosecutors believed the evidence would help disprove Weinstein’s assertion that the encounters were consensual.

The Court of Appeals, however, found that the testimony was simply evidence that he had a propensity to commit rape and sexual assault, not of his motive or intent.

WHAT DOES THE RULING MEAN FOR WEINSTEIN’S CALIFORNIA CASE?

Weinstein was sentenced to 16 years in prison following a separate 2022 rape conviction in California, which he is expected to appeal, and the New York ruling has no direct effect on that case.

In fact, California law specifically allows testimony about prior bad acts in sex crime cases as evidence that a defendant has a propensity to commit sex crimes. Such evidence was used in Weinstein’s California trial, and the state’s law will make it harder for his lawyers to challenge on appeal than in New York.

WHAT DOES THE RULING MEAN FOR FUTURE CASES IN NEW YORK?

According to the majority of the court, very little. Judge Jenny Rivera wrote in the majority opinion that the decision was based on well-established New York law, and said it was similar to another 1996 Court of Appeals decision, People v. Vargas, vacating a rape conviction because witnesses were allowed to testify about earlier alleged rapes by the defendant.

Dissenting judges in Thursday’s decision said the ruling would make it more difficult to prosecute sex crimes committed by people who know their victims and may have ongoing relationships with them, as in Weinstein’s case.

Judge Anthony Cannataro, who was among the dissenters, called it “an unfortunate step backwards from recent advances in our understanding of how sex crimes are perpetrated.”

Another dissenting judge, Madeline Singas, said the decision would effectively end the use of prior bad acts witnesses in such cases and make it difficult to prove intent.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

A murder at India Gate involving an ice-cream vendor, Prabhat, was driven by a love triangle. The killer, Ajay from Gonda, confessed to the crime after stabbing Prabhat in a three-way romance situation.