Dr Harold Shipman shocked the nation not only because of the scale of his crimes but because of the trust he so effortlessly violated, a doctor cloaked in authority who weaponised public confidence for sinister purposes. While Dr Sanjay Kaushal is not accused of taking lives, the allegations surrounding him evoke similar unease.
For over a decade, Kaushal has maintained a polished image as a senior healthcare consultant and board member of the Norfolk Care Association. Yet behind this carefully cultivated reputation lies a growing body of evidence pointing to alleged deception involving property fraud, company manipulation, drug linked networks and suspicious financial transfers.
Central to these operations is Besnik Ademaj, a business associate who appears to act as a constant front for Kaushal. What began as a probe into failed property ventures now exposes a calculated system designed to exploit legal gaps, deflect accountability and consolidate illicit gains. The parallel to Shipman is not in the nature of the crime but in the betrayal of institutional trust, the unnerving reminder that those who appear to serve the public may, in truth, be serving only themselves.
An Open Secret in the Records
At the centre of the investigation is a trail of companies registered on Companies House, where a consistent and troubling pattern emerges. Both Kaushal and Ademaj appear as directors but rarely together at the same time.
A case in point is Care Help UK Ltd, a company initially set up with noble intentions of building development projects. Dr Kaushal held a directorship here from April 3 2013, resigning precisely on May 20 2024 – the same day Mr Besnik Ademaj was appointed. This seamless handover was not a one off. A similar pattern can be traced in other firms linked to the duo through different proxy names.
According to Companies House, both men are listed as active directors in:
- Blue Crystal Property Management Ltd
- The Dining Group Holding Ltd
- Lions Properties (East) Ltd, registered under company number 14032123
- Southwell Developments Ltd
However, below are companies owned by Dr, Kashual and Bensik
· DJB DECORATING LIMITED (06390702)- DISSOLVED
· BMA DECORATING CONTRACTORS LIMITED 6092068- DISSOLVED
· BMA SPECIALIST COATINGS LIMITED 7084858
· BMA INTERNATIONAL TRADE LIMITED 10993513
· JP EAST LIMITED 8967198- LIQUIDATION
· JP EAST LIMITED 8967198- LIQUIDATION
· JAMP ESTATES LIMITED 8211984- LIQUIDATION
· Freedom Airbnb ltd 13866841
· NORWICH DINING LTD 14047592
· THE DINING GROUP HOLDING LIMITED 14017996
· BBB FUTURE BUILD LIMITED 14028969
· BMA CONSTRUCTION GROUP LTD 10997706
· B & D PROPERTY RENTAL LIMITED 11305350
· WOLF PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED 1200549
· EAGLE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED 12314662
· LIONS PROPERTIES (EAST) LTD 14032123
· BLUE CRYSTAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD 14382642
· WEAVERS HOUSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD 11702251
Sources indicate that these are just a handful of companies connected to the pair. Allegedly, dozens more businesses exist in their orbit, many of them registered under proxy directors and nominee shareholders, tactics commonly used to conceal true ownership and avoid scrutiny.
Related News
Exposed: The Shocking Truth Behind Margaret Smith’s Death at Lincoln House Care Home
Allegations of Exploitation and Fraud in the Property Sector
Interestingly, beyond the clean lines of paperwork and official filings, the real concern lies in what unfolds on the ground, where trust is built and often broken. Many who have entered into partnerships with Dr Sanjay Kaushal and Besnik Ademaj describe a troubling pattern. What begins as a collaboration rooted in creativity, development, and shared vision often devolves into a nightmare of confusion, legal entrapment, and financial ruin.
“You will think you’re working with professionals who believe in growth and community,” said one former partner while addressing our team member. “But instead, you’re met with roadblocks, shady tactics, and suddenly you’re left carrying the debt while they move on to the next deal.”
According to multiple individuals familiar with their business activities, Kaushal and Ademaj have been consistently involved in aggressive property dealings marked by a disturbing pattern of behaviour. These have included inflating construction costs beyond industry norms, abandoning or leaving projects undelivered, executing forced takeovers of joint ventures, and applying financial coercion that puts partners in impossible positions.
Allegedly, the strategy follows a familiar trajectory. The duo enters into joint ventures with clients, developers, or investors, promising mutual benefit and long-term returns. Once contracts are signed and funds are committed, progress mysteriously slows down. Deadlines pass without explanation, contractors are switched or disappear, and communication becomes sporadic or confrontational. Eventually, disputes begin to surface. In many instances, these disagreements appear manufactured or exaggerated.
The result is a gradual but calculated seizure of control, all while the original investor is left with the burden of debt, unfinished projects, or legal fees. Kaushal and Ademaj, meanwhile, appear to retain control of the property or its proceeds, moving on to repeat the cycle with the next unsuspecting partner.
Case 1: Marine Parade, Great Yarmouth – The 18-Flat Refurbishment That Collapsed Under Its Promises
This particular development began with an ambitious pitch: a £500,000 refurbishment project involving 18 flats, marketed as a fast-track renovation to be completed within six months. For the investors involved, it seemed like a promising opportunity. The figures made sense, the location was strong, and the project timeline offered a swift return. But what unfolded echoed a now-familiar sequence that has become synonymous with ventures allegedly linked to Besnik Ademaj.
Our team understands that what began with enthusiasm and clear deliverables quickly unraveled into a chaotic and costly experience. Construction work lagged behind schedule almost immediately, plagued by unexplained stoppages, irregular contractor appearances, and logistical delays. More troubling, however, was the quality of the work being carried out, which investors say was consistently poor and in some areas completely non-compliant with building standards.
The promised six-month delivery soon faded into uncertainty, and as time passed, costs began to escalate far beyond original projections
One investor, who requested anonymity, described the situation as “a masterclass in how to bleed a project dry under the guise of mismanagement.”
As the project ground to a halt, the financial pressure on the backers intensified. Without completed units to refinance or rent, and with their capital already committed, many were pushed to the brink of insolvency. Several now attribute their losses not to bad luck or delays, but to what they describe as a deliberate strategy of extraction and collapse employed by Ademaj and his network.
Case 2: 354 Bowthorpe Road – A Loan Disguised as a Trap
In another troubling instance, Mr Besnik Ademaj is alleged to have entered into a joint development venture with a man named Ian, a small-scale investor with a long-standing interest in property refurbishment. According to Ian, the agreement was straightforward: Ademaj would provide financing to support the redevelopment of a residential property, and once the project was complete and the property remortgaged, Ian would repay the loan using the released equity.
But the partnership quickly turned sour. Ian alleges that after the initial financing was secured, progress on the site slowed dramatically. Workmanship was poor, key components of the refurbishment were left unfinished, and contractors hired under Ademaj’s supervision either underperformed or abandoned tasks altogether. Despite raising repeated concerns, our team understand that his appeals were met with excuses, vague promises, or silence.
The critical blow came when the property was finally valued, well below projections due to the unfinished condition of the work. Ian found himself in a bind: the remortgage could not cover the amount borrowed, yet Ademaj allegedly continued to demand full repayment, applying financial pressure to force a resolution.
Faced with mounting stress, and no realistic way to raise funds, Ian ultimately lost control of the property. Records show that the building was transferred to BBB Future Build Ltd, a company where Ademaj is an active Director.
Cae 3: Weavers House – The £1.5 Million Overcharge
One striking example that illustrates the alleged pattern of manipulation involves a three-flat property conversion project managed by The BMA Group Ltd, where Besnik Ademaj holds a directorial position. What began as a routine development soon spiraled into controversy after the client behind the project claimed they were overcharged by an astonishing £1.5 million, a figure far beyond what was originally agreed or budgeted.
According to multiple sources close to the transaction, not only did the client receive substandard workmanship, but the inflated costs appeared unjustified when compared to the scope of work completed. The client, hoping for resolution, raised concerns with the company, expecting an audit or a renegotiation of terms. Instead, what followed reflects a now-familiar pattern observed in other dealings involving Ademaj and his network.
Rather than engaging in open mediation or financial reconciliation, control of the property was quietly transferred to Lions Properties (East) Ltd, another company reportedly linked to the same inner circle of associates. Official filings show a rapid change in control, raising red flags about the timing and intent behind the transfer.
Investigators suggest this scenario may be far from isolated. The case bears strong similarities to other reports in which clients or investors, after experiencing inexplicable delays, cost overruns, or sudden legal disputes, were pressured into relinquishing control of valuable assets. In many instances, the pressure was financially driven by mounting invoices, withheld completion, or legal threats. In others, it was psychological, with clients describing a sense of entrapment and confusion, often culminating in decisions made under extreme duress.
For the client in this case, the consequences were lasting. Not only was the project left incomplete and riddled with defects, but the loss of ownership added further emotional and financial strain — a result that some sources describe as being engineered rather than incidental.
Case 4: Wolf Property Holdings – A Partner Pushed Out
Among the most telling examples of alleged financial manipulation is a lettings company established as a joint venture between Besnik Ademaj and Liu Jianping, an investor who contributed a significant capital injection to help launch the business. According to sources familiar with the matter, Liu Jianping invested approximately £350,000, trusting in what appeared to be a promising and professionally run partnership.
However, as operations began, it became clear that Jianping’s role was being reduced to that of a silent financial backer rather than an equal partner. Instead of being involved in key decision-making, Jianping was reportedly asked to provide further funds to cover operating costs, under the assurance that the business would soon become profitable. Believing in the legitimacy of the venture and its future potential, Jianping complied.
But by September 2020, the partnership had effectively ended not through formal dispute resolution, but by Besnik Ademaj assuming full control of the company, sidelining Jianping completely. There was no formal buyout or financial reconciliation. Jianping, despite being the primary investor, was left without equity, influence, or compensation, raising serious questions about how the transition occurred and whether the structure of the partnership was ever meant to be honored.
The loss of £350,000 represents more than just a failed investment. According to individuals with knowledge of the case, Jianping’s funds were instrumental in getting the business off the ground, yet once the company was established and operational, he was quietly removed from the picture.
Drugs, Development, and Dirty Money: Tracing the Cannabis Trail in Norfolk
In the United Kingdom, drug trafficking, cultivation, and money laundering are not only serious criminal offenses , they strike at the core of public trust and community safety. But when individuals perceived as respectable business figures and professional role models are implicated in drug networks, financial crimes, and cannabis farms, it raises profound concerns about society we are becoming, and the blind spots that allow crime to thrive behind polished veneers.
One such name drawing intense scrutiny is Besnik Ademaj, a man long described in public as a property developer, businessman, and investor. But on June 1, 2025, the façade cracked. In a report by the Eastern Daily Press, titled “12 accused of Norwich cannabis growing and money laundering,” Ademaj’s name appeared in the opening paragraph not as a victim, investor, or witness, but as one of the accused.
“The 50-year-old property developer,” the article opened, leaving readers stunned. Could it be the same Besnik Ademaj — often seen collaborating with professionals, allegedly mentoring others in property development, and closely tied to Dr Sanjay Kaushal, a board member of Norfolk Care Association?
The public reaction was swift. For many, the headlines were hard to reconcile with the image they had of Ademaj. But our investigation sought to look beyond shock, and into the underlying network of connections, business arrangements, and prior drug-linked incidents that now appear to form a disturbing pattern.
Our correspondent reports that behind the glossy facade of property development and investment lies a darker undercurrent that has quietly shadowed some of Norfolk’s most controversial business dealings. As recent investigations uncover, a web of cannabis cultivation, financial manipulation, and possible organised crime appears to link several figures operating within the local property industry, including Besnik Ademaj, his associates, and former business partners. It was uncovered that the signs have been visible dating back 2018.
For instance, Eagle Property Holdings, a company associated with Ademaj, was carrying out construction work on a property owned by Liu Jianping, another alleged business associate on the web. During this period, the property was raided by police, who discovered a cannabis farm with an estimated value exceeding £200,000. While charges were not publicly confirmed at the time, the discovery planted early questions about how these operations could exist undetected within active development projects.
Fast forward to 2020, and the scope widened dramatically. In a coordinated operation, Norfolk Police raided properties in both Costessey and Bowthorpe, uncovering more than 800 cannabis plants across the two locations, with an estimated street value exceeding £600,000.
Three men were arrested and later charged in connection with the cultivation:
- Ardit Ademaj, a 24-year-old Albanian national,
- Klevi Haxhaj, and
- Ditmir Avdia.
All three men were suspected to be part of a broader cannabis production network. Ardit Ademaj, of Albanian origin, shares the same surname as Besnik Ademaj. While no official familial link has been publicly confirmed, it is strongly believed that the two may be related based on name and background.
Shortly after Ardit’s arrest, BMA Specialist Coatings Limited, a company owned by Besnik Ademaj and based at the Union Building in Norwich, was raided by police. The timing and proximity of these events have raised serious concerns about overlapping activities and potential use of business fronts for illicit operations.
Further complicating the picture, Ardit Ademaj appeared before Norwich Magistrates’ Court in February 2020, where he admitted to cultivating cannabis. He was jailed for seven months following a raid on a property on Braithwait Close in Bowthorpe, where officers found at least 130 cannabis plants in various stages of growth valued at approximately £50,000.
The repeated emergence of properties used for cannabis cultivation, the appearance of shared surnames and business links, and the targeting of companies tied to Ademaj raises pressing questions. Are these isolated incidents, or is Norfolk facing a well-organised and deliberately hidden criminal enterprise embedded within its property sector?
However, community members, investors, and even former associates now say that the connections, between drugs, property, and money laundering, are too clear to ignore.
As these cases proceed through the courts, public trust in those operating within Norfolk’s property and development sectors hangs in the balance. What began as whispers of misconduct has evolved into formal charges, criminal convictions, and serious allegations of systemic abuse, all involving individuals once thought to be legitimate professionals.
