Prince's shock at 'mistrust'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE youngest brother of the Sultan of Brunei, the world's richest man, was "shattered" after finding that two close friends and emissaries had abused his trust and were making huge profits out of him, the High Court was told yesterday.
But the "astonishment, shock and horror" expressed by Prince Jefri of Bolkiah was "just nonsense", said Christopher Carr QC, counsel for Bob and Rafi Manoukian.
They are suing the prince for pounds 80m, alleging that he failed to honour deals. They say he reneged on a pounds 55m deal to buy the Adelphi property in the Strand and a pounds 25m verbal deal to renovate the first five storeys of his London home in Park Lane.
He is counter-suing for more than pounds 100m, alleging that the Manoukian brothers, whose family has worked as middlemen for the Brunei royal family for almost two decades, systematically exploited their close friendship and made unreasonable and concealed profits out of him.
Yesterday Mr Carr told the court it was the prince's case that he had trusted "his great friend" Rafi Manoukian not to overcharge him but to act in his best interests.
It would be the prince's evidence that he became suspicious about him and his activities in June 1994. These suspicions were directed to repeat billing - submitting a bill and then sending another one for the same thing at a later date. This was "unfounded", said Mr Carr.
The case continues.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments