A City banker who frittered away his fortune on spreadbetting to avoid being called a “wimp” by colleagues has been ordered to hand his remaining assets to his ex-wife.
Amit Goyal, 39, earned up to £300,000 a year as a trader for Deutsche Bank and UBS in London, but blew much of his salary on “holidays and high living” with his beauty therapist wife Ankita Ghuman.
When the couple split in 2011, Mr Goyal admitted he had been sucked into spreadbetting due to pressure from other bankers, leading him to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds.
A judge ordered Mr Goyal, now living on benefits and more than £650,000 in debt, to hand over his remaining assets to Ms Ghuman, 35, to stop him gambling it away.
Mr Justice Cobb upheld the decision yesterday in the Court of Appeal, ruling that Mr Goyal’s “financial recklessness to the detriment of his family” meant he should be stripped of his remaining “depressingly limited” assets.
Mr Goyal worked for City banks throughout his marriage, which began in 2003, supplementing the family income with spreadbetting.
Initially he was earning up to £30,000 a year through gambling, but from 2007 began to suffer “disastrous” losses of up to £300,000 a year.
Since their split, the couple have been locked in an “acrimonious” legal battle over their finances.
At a hearing last year Judge Glenn Brasse had found Mr Goyal had been lured in by “a constant circulation amongst the traders of information and tips about spreadbets, with a strong peer pressure to participate. He told the court that those who declined the invitation were laughed at as wimps.
“So in order not to lose face, a trader would feel he had to take part. The husband did not want to be seen as a wimp. He wanted credibility in the eyes of his peers.”
As part of the divorce settlement, Mr Goyal must surrender £19,000 in UBS shares to his ex-wife, pay her £500 a month in maintenance and share his pension with her. Dismissing his appeal against the settlement, Mr Justice Cobb said Ms Ghuman “was entitled to such financial payments as the depressingly limited family assets would permit, to provide if possible for her housing.
“The husband had frittered away the matrimonial assets. Having dissipated all the wealth of the family, this husband should not have a penny more.”
Mr Goyal has vowed to challenge the court ruling over sharing his pension, and claims that he does not have one.
