On 16 September 2024, the founder of grass-roots organisation Sikh Youth UK and his sister were found guilty of fraud offences relating to donated charitable funds. West Midlands Police reported that the latter was convicted for money laundering and six counts of theft amounting to £50,000 and both were respectively convicted for one count under Section 60 of the Charities Act 2011 – knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information to the Charity Commission. This followed an inquiry launched by the Charity Commission as far back as the summer of 2019. Despite not being a registered charity, it was deemed investigation-worthy on account of how funds were garnered. At the time it was noticeable that details pertaining to the allegations, the arrests, and other raids, were in the Indian press within an hour or two, contrary to the way in which such investigations are handled with sensitivity and discretion. Now that a conviction has followed, questions are again being asked following a repeat of that media frenzy in the sub-continental press and other substantial reasons.

I’d written about the arrests of Deepa Singh and Rajbinder Kaur five years ago when the allegations had become common knowledge and the West Midlands Police believed they had enough information to push for a conviction. My piece was one of the few questioning the allegations and trying to look at the wider picture:

“When financial misgivings are raised at any organisation in the public eye, we are used to assuming there is no smoke without fire, as is probably what some think in this case, but in light of what took place with last year’s raids, the continued incarceration of Jagtar Singh Johal, an increasingly politically-informed generation of younger Sikhs, and the unchecked advances of the Indian State into every corner of the UK Sikh community, can we afford to be so dismissive? I think not.“

Five years on, Jagtar Singh Johal remains incarcerated, younger Sikhs have become more politically-informed – partly following the Kisan Morcha of 2020-2021 – and the advance of the Indian state into the UK as well as North America and other European states has only increased. In that light, there are many questions to be answered around this case and the conviction that has been achieved. Indeed, Sikh Youth UK have re-posted some of the salient points themselves as expressed by the Sikh Human Rights Instagram account from which there is an overwhelming sense that much of this case revolves around the incarceration of Jagtar Singh Johal, a point brought closer to home with the fact that court papers were listed in the names ‘Johal, Kaur & Lehal v Regina‘. There is an excellent written piece at Baaz News by the co-founder of the National Sikh Youth Federation (NSYF), Shamsher Singh who dissects this aspect and more which is a must-read. Notably, Deepa Singh has been a major rallying voice protesting the now seven-year long incarceration of Jagtar Singh Johal in India.

Whilst some in the Sikh community will have heard the guilty verdict and presumed there must be some foul play involved, even if it is not to the extent that is being alleged and reported, something of a re-think is required. There are some clear misrepresentations being made in the press and from the Police report itself in regards to the misappropriated funds, namely that these were being used to fund personal expenses. As has been vocalised in the weeks since by those close to Sikh Youth UK, what this leaves out is that there were funds invested in the work of Sikh Youth UK in its earliest days, specifically by Rajbinder Kaur that were being returned. How this was presented in Court, or why it was disregarded, is not known to me; however it has been mooted that the investigations disregarded earlier banking transactions and only focused on those from later years. I understand that Sikh Youth UK and its patrons openly accepted that there were book-keeping mistakes and poor accounting practices present, but that did not justify the allegation that some £50,000 was misappropriated in the backdrop of ten years plus of activities. Whilst the law is not concerned with amounts per se, simply that the law has not been followed, there is a huge question here on the amounts taken; for many in Sikh organisations, myself included, on occasions we need to spend funds on projects and events without there being available monies in our registered bank account, which we then do from our own pocket – when the money is available we are reimbursed. It is of immense importance that there is a paper trail of receipts and invoices that can verify this expenditure of course, but even in the absence of such there can be other forms of proof of such payments for example from those providing services rendered. It is too simplistic to write-off money that was reimbursed in this way to both of the accused on the grounds of poor book-keeping. This is just one of the examples that has left me perplexed as to why the context of this case seems to be absent in reporting, and in the court itself.

In my previous piece on this matter I had declared that I have known both Deepa Singh and his sister for over thirty years, now some forty years; my judgement is not being clouded by that long-lasting relationship, in fact it is not one that can be classed as a personal one, such is my own increasing isolation from friends and families due to work commitments. I continue to believe their protestations of innocence based on the bigger picture. When one considers everything from the lack of movement in the Jagtar Singh Johal case, to the publishing of the Bloom Review in 2023, and takes stock of the hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax payers money spent trying and failing to extradite Sikh activists to India, or failing to find evidence of terrorist activities on the electronic devices taken from their homes, then it does make you think that the foudner of Sikh Youth UK and his sister are being scape-goated, if for no other reason, to justify years of budgets devoted to investigating the community. My hope is that an appeal will be lodged and successful, but should it not, that in sentencing common sense prevails. Much greater sums of money have been misappropriated without leading to custodial sentences, courts opting instead for repayment and barring of directorship. Time will tell – is this a political manoeuvre, or will justice prevail.