Allegations of a multi-million pound fraud in Lithuania have been revealed in a high court case involving an island-registered company now in liquidation.

Liquidators of a Vintage Holdings Ltd had rejected a proof of debt claim lodged by British Virgin Island-based Exclusiva General Inc.

Joint liquidator Gordon Wilson said Exclusiva had failed to provide further or satisfactory evidence in support of its claim.

But the would-be creditor applied to the high court seeking disclosure of documents used in support of the decision to refuse the proof of debt.

The court heard that proceedings have begun in England, Lithuania and the Isle of Man relating to the validity of loans made to Vintage Holdings, which was in the business of buying and selling property in London.

It had entered into a number of loan agreements totalling £17,464,000 with Lithuanian-based UAB Ukio Banko Investicine Grupe.

Authorities in Lithuania carried out investigations into the ’squandering’ of the assets of Ukio Bank, now in insolvency.

Liquidators suspect that the funds used to finance the purchase of property in London were not derived from a legitimate source.

Vintage Holdings’ funds held at the Clydesdale Bank are now subject to a court restraining order.

Exclusiva was an ultimateassignee to a number of the loans. Its advocate Alan Gough said his clients were aware of steps taken in Lithuania and in England regarding restraint of funds and the investigation into criminal allegations in Lithuania.

He sought copies of books and records relating to the loans, and the statements of the Lithuanian authorities.

Mr Gough said there should be a level playing field and his clients should have access to the documents that the liquidators had relied on in coming to the decision to reject the proof of claim.

But the liquidator’s advocate Jeremy Callin said it would be ’manifestly inappropriate’ for a creditor to put in a weak proof of debt and then go to court to bolster its claim.

Deemster Arrowsmith, however, ruled that under the basic principle of fairness, the requested documents should be disclosed.

’Either the materials are with the respondents and can be produced or they can confirm that they do not have them,’ he said.