Digant Patel, Dr. Kiran Zaveri, Aarya Patel, Ronak Agarwal, Alvaro Torres, and Alam Shah participate in alleged fraud scheme through false chargebacks.
Digant Patel and Dr. Kiran Zaveri are at the center of an alleged chargeback scheme that left a direct-to-consumer liquor retailer facing more than $7,000 in disputed transactions. What began as a modest purchase developed into progressively larger orders of expensive single-malt Scotch. The payments cleared, the merchandise was shipped, and delivery records confirm that the packages reached the commercial addresses provided. Weeks later, the cardholders disputed the charges, claiming the orders had never arrived.
Receipts, emails, payment records, and delivery confirmations show how the transactions were divided among different names, cards, recipients, and business addresses. Aarya Patel, Ronak Agarwal, Alvaro Torres, and Alam Shah appeared at different points in the records, making the orders initially look like purchases from separate customers rather than transactions connected through the same professional and business network.
How the Pattern Worked
The sequence began with a relatively small order. The payment cleared, the shipment was delivered, and no dispute was filed. From the retailer’s perspective, the completed transaction established an ordinary purchasing history: the card worked, the address appeared valid, and the customer raised no concerns after delivery.
The orders then increased in value and volume. Because the earlier purchases had been fulfilled without incident, the later transactions did not resemble the conventional pattern of stolen-card fraud, in which someone attempts to make a single unusually large purchase before the card is disabled.
Only after the orders were reviewed together did the broader pattern become apparent. Different combinations of names and cards appeared across the transactions, but the people involved were connected through the same businesses, professional relationships, and commercial locations.
One Order, Several Names
In some transactions, the name on the order differed from the name of the cardholder. The intended recipient could be someone else, while the person accepting the shipment was a receptionist, clerk, or other employee at the delivery address.
Alam Shah’s name, for example, appeared in the retailer’s records in connection with shipments sent to 511 North Gordon Street in Alvin, Texas. The commercial property is identified publicly as the location of the Alvin Drive-In, a convenience store and gas station owned by Digant Patel. Public property information classifies the address as a commercial retail location.
The Alvin Drive-In was more than a random shipping address. Orders sent there formed part of the same sequence of transactions later disputed by the cardholders. Because it was an operating commercial location, the packages could be accepted by an employee or another person who was not necessarily the purchaser, cardholder, or intended recipient.
Similar overlaps connected transactions involving Aarya Patel, Ronak Agarwal, and Alvaro Torres. The three men are also publicly connected through AARO Real Estate, a hospitality investment and hotel-management company founded in 2023. AARO identifies Aarya Patel and Ronak Agarwal as co-founders and principals and Alvaro Torres as its chief operating officer and a principal.
An earlier version of AARO’s team page identified Digant Patel and Dr. Kiran Zaveri as chairmen while listing Aarya Patel, Ronak Agarwal, and Alvaro Torres in senior leadership positions. The current version of the company’s website curiously no longer includes Patel and Zaveri in its public leadership section.
Dr. Kiran Zaveri appeared alongside Digant Patel as a chairman on AARO’s earlier team page. Outside the real-estate company, Zaveri is a Metairie, Louisiana-based physician specializing in internal medicine.
LCMC Health identifies Zaveri as an internal-medicine physician affiliated with East Jefferson General Hospital. The Physicians Alliance Corporation Accountable Care Organization identifies him as its medical director and a member of its governing body.
Exploiting Commercial Delivery Addresses
The alleged scheme’s use of commercial destinations created another layer of separation. At a business, packages are commonly accepted by whoever happens to be staffing the front desk, counter, mailroom, or receiving area. That person’s signature confirms that the shipment reached the specified address, but the package can then be collected by someone whose name appears nowhere in the carrier’s records.
A single transaction could therefore contain three or four names: one on the order, another on the payment card, another identified as the recipient, and still another on the delivery confirmation.
Viewed separately, those differences could resemble ordinary corporate purchasing. Across a succession of connected orders, however, they formed a recognizable pattern. The order names changed. The cards changed. The people signing for the packages changed. But the transactions repeatedly led back to connected individuals, businesses, and delivery locations.
The shipments to the Alvin Drive-In illustrate the problem. Delivery to an active convenience store established that the packages reached the address supplied with the orders. It did not necessarily identify which person ultimately removed them from the store.
The Disputes
After more than $7,000 in merchandise had been delivered, Digant Patel and Alam Shah then disputed the accumulated charges with their credit card company, claiming that the orders had not been received. Most or all of the disputed purchases were made using American Express cards, which almost always sides with the cardholder in retail disputes.
The carrier records show that the packages reached the addresses supplied at checkout. When signatures were required, the shipments were accepted at those locations. The accompanying emails and transaction records connect the purchasers, cardholders, recipients, and delivery addresses to the same professional network.
The issue was not whether the retailer had shipped the merchandise. Its fulfillment and carrier records established that. The dispute centered on whether delivery to the exact commercial address supplied with an order was sufficient to establish that the cardholder or intended recipient had received the goods.
Why the Pattern Was Difficult to Detect
The alleged scheme depended on patience. Instead of beginning with a conspicuously large purchase, the ordering history was built gradually. Each successful delivery made the next transaction appear less risky.
Dividing the transactions among several names and payment cards further obscured the relationship between the orders. Delivering the merchandise to operating businesses such as the Alvin Drive-In made it possible for someone other than the purchaser, cardholder, or intended recipient to accept a shipment.
None of those circumstances is necessarily suspicious on its own. Businesses routinely buy products for employees, use corporate cards bearing different names, and rely on receptionists or other workers to accept deliveries. The warning emerged from the combination: escalating order values, overlapping professional relationships, changing names and cards, shared commercial destinations, and disputes filed only after multiple shipments had been completed.
What Merchants Should Watch For
Merchants selling expensive products should look beyond whether an individual payment is approved. A pattern of rapidly increasing orders deserves additional review even when the customer’s earlier transactions were successful.
Orders should receive closer scrutiny when the purchaser, cardholder, intended recipient, and delivery contact are different people. Merchants should also check whether apparently separate customers are connected to the same company, business address, telephone number, email domain, or professional network.
For high-value shipments, an ordinary signature requirement may not be enough. Restricted delivery—requiring the named recipient or cardholder to accept the package personally—can create a clearer chain of custody than a signature from an unidentified employee at a commercial receiving desk. The lesson from the Patel-Zaveri transactions is that a clean payment and confirmed delivery do not always mark the end of an order. Sometimes they are only the beginning.
댓글 0개