Aga Khan Lawsuit: Fraud at Aga Khan Studs - 2000-02-22

Action brought by Mary Charlton - a secretary at the Aga's Irish studs for 27 years - against his bloodstock holding company, the Studs Societe Civile.

But it turns out that the Aga Khan had no hand in mistreating the Plaintiff:

The Aga also appeared to deny having ordered Charlton to be fired because Carnegie continued: "His Highness further instructs me that he did not issue instructions to either Richard Coulton, Frank Faughan or myself or any other person, to take any steps in relation to the termination, or alteration of the terms of, Mrs Charlton's employment."

Read the full Judgment attached below to see:
- How a document forgery was perpetrated by a high ranking agent of the Aga Khan to cover up that agent's own possible involvement in a large fraud.
- How this forgery was done on behalf of the Aga Khan and His Societe Civile.
- How this agent attempted to mislead the Irish High Court in order to prejudice it and divert blame to a secretary
- How this nevertheless became a very long court battle that was made to look like a former secretary was conducting a lawsuit against the Aga Khan.

In this case, where the Aga Khan and his society were the defendants, the Judge said:

"It is a matter of regret that I have had to come to such conclusions. I am
sure that His Highness will be surprised and upset at the manner in which the litigation
has been approached and at how the Orders of the High Court have been dealt with by his
agents on behalf of the Defendant Société
. It is most unfortunate in view of the high
regard in which his family, and in particular his grandfather, have always been held in this
country where his name is well remembered annually in the competition for the famous
Aga Khan trophy. This is all the more a matter for regret in a case in which the letters of
praise and commendation of the Plaintiff, written in such gracious terms to the Plaintiff
by His Highness, stand out as a ray of sunshine amid the bleak atmosphere of
confrontation and distrust engendered by the conduct of some of the agents and
employees of the Defendant. I should make clear that no criticism is intended of
Solicitor or Counsel acting on behalf of the Defendant who act on instructions given and
can only divulge such documents as are given to them and cannot be criticised if they
have not been made aware by their own clients of improper, unauthorised and misleading