Mphasis, ex-employee spar in US court over impersonation, whistleblower claims

The Indian Information Technology (CT) services company filed a complaint for threatening Nitin Raqesh, which was digitally imitating Albert Rojas at the New York Regional Court on April 16, and threatened another employee, and it was also allegedly disclosing the registered information through repeating websites.

Rojas, a customer technical expert in the United States, rejected the charges. In his response to the court on June 10, Rojas stated that MPHASİS had repeated websites to make Mphasis aware of the alleged cyber tours, and that their actions were “protected information flying activity ve and laws were allowed by law. He said that no business is done through repeating websites.

However, on June 15, Mphasis’s lawyer filed a second complaint to the New York court claiming that the court had violated the June 9 decision as a website of Rojas, which resembles a company.

On May 6, the court passed a temporary limitation order that prohibits Rojas from accessing and disclosing the secret information of the company. On June 9, he accepted a prerequisite order that reiterated the restriction order and prohibited Rojas from contacting Mphasis employees, where he worked together.

Also read | INFOSYS-CONNİNİZANT TRADE SERRETS WAR REPRESENTATION DALLAS COURT Emir

Mphasis fell out of Rojas’s employment in March, accusing him of stealing information about the registered company and customer from a laptop given by the company and transferring them to personal systems without authorizing the data. In addition, he issued a stop and evacuation notification that asked him to return the laptop and ask for clarity in third parties where he shared the company -specific information.

On April 16, the company owned by Blackstone complained to the New York Regional Court that Rojas was misleading and threatening one of its employees through Rojas’s actions.

“On April 4, 2025, Rojas sent a threatening e -card by stating that he would return to the New York City from“ nitin.rakesh@mphasis.it.com from Parody E -Post to Waghmode. [Waghmode’s] MPHASİS Court’s complaint in the 28th nonsense donkey.

Mint could not detect details about the incident mentioned in Waghmode’s identity or Mphasis’s complaint.

Genesis

In his case opened in April, Mphasis said that on February 28, 2025, although it was warned against it, Rojas said that MPHASİS’s customer has conveyed hidden and registered information to QBE in the form of a PowerPoint presentation for QBE.

QBE Insural Group Ltd is a Sydney -based company that declares the data violation of sensitive personal and protected health information of the unidentified number of individuals last year.

Mphasis said that Rojas immediately locked his account due to multiple security violations and terminated his employment in March at the end of an investigation into repeated violations.

The Bengaluru -based company added that Rojas also shared hidden files and presentations with colleagues who are not included in the confidentiality violation investigation against him, and that this was a violation of the company’s policies.

Mphasis said that despite the signing of documents that prohibit Rojas from sending this to customer systems and e-mails, Rojas said he did this.

In his response to the New York Court on June 10, Rojas said that Mphasis refused to publish a laptop to publish a laptop and should use a laptop published by QBE.

As the laptop given by QBE, the technical disruptions allowed it to use his personal system as it allowed to access both mphasis and QBE networks.

Rojas added that this double access will cause cyber problems and will reveal hidden information to multiple users in addition to the blue screen, which is an error screen that leads to the collapse of the system displayed on the monitor.

“Mphasis’s inability to provide the standard infrastructure (for example, a laptop, VPN), underlined the selective policy implementation and retaliation, relief, and underlined the prevention of relief.” He said.

Also read | The middle title performs better than larger peers, the threat of eating lunch

Fees and counter fees

Mphasis reported to the court that after Rojas’s employment, MPHASİS had an unauthorized website with humiliating information about the company using the letterhead of 12-15 March.

Mphasis said that Rojas’s repeated website uses the company’s trademark and logo, and that a “parody” e -mail address that mimic the general manager, said that MPHASİS employees.

“Rojas, MPHASIS registered information from the authorized company equipment removed and published information on the website,” MPHASİS said in the first court complaint. He said.

In his response to the court on June 10, Rojas said that Mphasis, whom Mphasis had brought several times by the public, was in the informative permission to inform the cyber tours.

“These websites were not commercial, it was designed only for public opinion, and it contained open waives, including the following:“ This is not an official mphasis site. This site includes protected explanations made in accordance with NYLL § 740 and other force laws. All shared information is for documentation, research and public accountability. “,” Rojas in his response to court.

“The defendant launched these sites after ignoring the multiple internal ascensions, including official complaints to the Ethical and Compliance Office and notice channels, including serious governance and safety failures.” He said.

He added that using the company logo and name should be classified as “Fair Adil Use and Parody”.

Also read | CT companies hunt opportunities instead of waiting for customers to swim tenders

In addition to the additional answers to the court on June 16, Rojas said that the repetition website address using Mphasis is now directed to a different website.

“As of June 16, 2025, the Mphasis.Cloud area was completely cleared of the content and now he added that he did not play any ownership information.”

“The basic“ commercial secret ”allegedly supplied is not a registered code-Two large open marine institutions allowed the puddles of identity among the systems, then accused a single individual, then shifted the crime to a single person, and the laptop was not disabled and a special researcher returned to normal”.

Court trail

As part of the temporary limitation order published on May 6, the New York Regional Court prohibited Rojas from using any E -Posta address that mimic MPHASIS CEO, including MPHASİS, employees or E -Post domain names similar to the legal department.

Judge Jesse M. Furman also asked Mphasis to facilitate the return of the laptop and ordered Rojas’s judicial examination of his personal accounts.

“Rojas will cooperate with Mphasis’s lawyer to organize a neutral judicial auditor selected by Mphasis, and to immediately examine Rojas’s personal Mac computer, all E -mail accounts, cloud accounts and other relevant software/equipment used by Rojas since March 13, 2025,” he said.

The court reiterated its temporary decision in the preliminary decision issued on June 9 and prohibited Rojas from contacting MPHASİS employees or customers.

Judge Furman, “Rojas, Mphasis, QBE and employees by employing the content of the MPHASIS customer will stop contacting the customer,” he said. “Rojas will remove all websites using Mphasis called domain and stop creating websites that despise Mphasis.”

Also read | India’s first three IT firm bosses Flag Macroeconomic Concerns

Mphasis complained that Rojas violated the June 9 decision on June 15th and approached the court again.

Orum I write the court to declare that he had violated Mphasis on Mphasis.cloud and violated the prerequisite decision of 9 June 2025. The plaintiff demands an order against the defendant’s multiple violations of the defendant.

Mphasis also rejected Rojas’s claim that the company had rented a special researcher to watch it.

“MPHASİS RETAINED OUTSIDE COUND COUNTRY WHO in Turn Hirered Private Investigator Brad D. KELLY to Locate Me and Retriened A Qbe-ISSUED LAPTOP. though mphasis had altered a ‘no due. Reading a screen of the repeated website.

Mphasis’s adviser, “The defendant not only underestimated Mphasis, but has activated his website using the name of the PI by using the name of the domain, and at the same time underestimated Mphasis’s lawyer with misconduct,” he said. “It is clear that the defendant had no intention of following the court decisions dated May 15, 2025, when he was ordered to bring his personal laptop to the court on 29 May 2025.”

Also read | MPHASIS will account for 8% of the total income.

Dangerous for mphasis

In 2024-25, Mphasis increased by 4.43% in 2024-25 was the slowest among most double-digit growth peers. India’s seventh largest information technology is the only company that declares a decrease in the number of personnel among its peers.

Mphasis stock decreased by approximately 5% this year, while the Nifty IT index lost about 9%. On Tuesday morning, Mphasis’s shares increased by about 0.5% LaEach of them is 2,720.00 in NSE.

Mphasis sought at least $ 5,000 damage from Rojas.

“Mphasis, Rojas, the above described computer fraud and abuse law, and the value of this loss to MPHASIS, the value of this loss exceeds $ 5,000,00 for a period of one year,” he prepared.

In his response, Rojas asked the court to reject Mphasis’s complaint and receive punishment and compensatory damages, including legal wages. He also asked the court to restore Mphasis.

Global Communication President Deepa Nagaraj said on June 15th to Mint’s E -mail, “MPHASIS does not comment on the characteristics of ongoing cases,” he said. Nagaraj, “Details on the appropriate time or on the conclusion of the subject will be presented through our court or legal adviser. We are sure that the legal procedures will confirm our position.” He said.

QBE did not answer the queries sent by E -mail on June 11th.

He directed Rojas Mint to court applications and reiterated his stance.