Kannan Amalraj and Kenyan Consulting sue WA MP over alleged loan
Kannan Amalraj and Kenyan Consulting LLC sued West Australian Labor MP Jagadish Krishnan in New Jersey, alleging he failed to repay a $1 million loan. They are seeking $1.2 million, including interest, and Krishnan says he will defend the case.
AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 2 independent reports from 4 outlets · Article text read from 1 of 2 reportsHow it's made
View timeline · 5 entriesWhat happened
Key facts
- Kannan Amalraj and Kenyan Consulting LLC sued West Australian Labor MP Jagadish Krishnan in New Jersey over an alleged $1 million unpaid loan (per watoday.com.au).
- The plaintiffs seek $1.2 million, including interest, and accuse Krishnan of not repaying the loan within the agreed timeframe (per watoday.com.au).
- Amalraj alleged that Krishnan contacted him through a mutual friend in the first week of May 2024 (per watoday.com.au).
- Amalraj claimed he agreed to lend Krishnan US$250,000 and sent two US$125,000 instalments on May 6 and May 8 (per watoday.com.au).
- The loan agreement was dated May 15, 2024, carried 6 per cent annual interest and set a repayment period of nine years (per watoday.com.au).
- Krishnan began defamation proceedings in the WA Supreme Court over emails Amalraj and his wife sent to figures including Premier Roger Cook and Energy Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson (per watoday.com.au).
The brief
Kannan Amalraj and Kenyan Consulting LLC have sued West Australian Labor MP Jagadish Krishnan in New Jersey, alleging he failed to repay a $1 million loan. The plaintiffs seek $1.2 million, including interest, and Krishnan has said he will defend the lawsuit.
ABC Australia’s headline also says Krishnan vowed to “vigorously defend” the US case; The Age identifies him as the Riverton MLA and describes the loan as alleged and unpaid. According to WAtoday, court documents were lodged in the New Jersey District Court on October 20.
The lawsuit accuses Krishnan of “unjustly enriching” himself by not repaying the loan within the timeframe the plaintiffs say was agreed. The $1.2 million claim includes interest; the source does not give a separate breakdown of that total. Amalraj’s account, as reported by WAtoday, is that Krishnan reached out through a mutual friend during the first week of May 2024.
Amalraj claimed the initial request concerned US$250,000, and that he agreed to lend the money. He said he sent it in two instalments of US$125,000, on May 6 and May 8. The article says the loan agreement was dated May 15, 2024, set annual interest at 6 per cent and provided nine years for repayment.
The lawsuit’s allegation that Krishnan did not repay within the agreed timeframe is a claim by Amalraj and Kenyan Consulting, not a finding of liability stated in the report.
The claimed loan amount and the amount sought in the lawsuit are distinct figures: US$250,000 is the initial lending described in Amalraj’s account, while the plaintiffs seek $1.2 million including interest. Krishnan has also begun defamation proceedings in the WA Supreme Court.
WAtoday reports that the case concerns emails Amalraj and his wife sent to figures including Premier Roger Cook and Energy Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson. The article describes the proceedings as a separate case; it does not report an outcome in either lawsuit. The report also recounts a previous account involving Krishnan’s business.
It says 9News reported last year that his business partner took his family trust to court for $53,000, and that lawyers demanded a further $52,000 concerning Krishnan’s management of medical practices. Those amounts and claims are reported as separate matters, not as part of the New Jersey plaintiffs’ loan claim.
Why it matters
- Amalraj and Kenyan Consulting are seeking $1.2 million, including interest, from Krishnan through the New Jersey lawsuit.
- The dispute involves two separate court cases: the New Jersey loan suit and Krishnan’s defamation proceedings in the WA Supreme Court.
- The loan account reported by WAtoday specifies US$250,000 in two instalments, a 6 per cent annual interest rate and a nine-year repayment period.
What to watch next
- Whether Krishnan files a defence in the New Jersey lawsuit, which he has said he will contest.
- How the New Jersey District Court proceeds with the plaintiffs’ $1.2 million claim.
- How the WA Supreme Court defamation proceedings brought by Krishnan progress.
How it's being covered
Coverage analysisShow details5 source articles · 4 unique outlets · 2 distinct reportsOutlet political mix: Center Only· 4 CenterWhere the outlets are based: Asia 100%
- Coverage is currently concentrated among Center-rated outlets (4 of 4 rated sources); comparatively few Left or Right-rated outlets have published on the event.
- Coverage is currently concentrated among outlets based in Asia (4 of 4 geographically-identified sources).
How outlets' accounts compare
Timeline
Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.- Jagadish Krishnan was elected as the Western Australian Labor member for Riverton.Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
- AllegedAmalraj alleged that Krishnan contacted him through a mutual friend in the first week of May 2024.
- Amalraj said he transferred a second US$125,000 instalment to Krishnan.Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
- The loan agreement was dated May 15, 2024, carried 6 per cent annual interest and set a repayment period of nine years.
- Jagadish Krishnan was re-elected as the Western Australian Labor member for Riverton.Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
How we got here
The dispute has developed through two separate civil proceedings in different jurisdictions. The account of the financial dealings begins in May 2024, when Kannan Amalraj says Jagadish Krishnan contacted him through a mutual friend during the first week of the month.
Amalraj alleges that he agreed to provide a loan and transferred two instalments of US$125,000, on May 6 and May 8. A written agreement dated May 15 is said to have set annual interest at 6 per cent and allowed nine years for repayment. Those terms form part of the plaintiffs’ account; they have not, on the information reported, been established by a court.
Original sources
5 articles from 4 outletsEvery story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources
Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.