Key Takeaways
- • Supraj Rajagopalan, former CEO of Cinven, resigned in December 2025 following a Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) probe that considered seeking a High Court ban on him from running companies.
- • The CMA has since dropped efforts to pursue the boardroom ban, allowing Rajagopalan to break his silence on the matter for the first time.
- • Rajagopalan characterizes the impact of the leaked CMA investigation as shifting the burden of proof against him, describing the experience as converting him "from being innocent until proven guilty to being guilty until proven innocent."
- • The executive's public statement addresses both the circumstances of his departure and his plans to move forward professionally following the watchdog's decision to cease enforcement action.
Summary
Supraj Rajagopalan, the former chief executive of Cinven, has publicly addressed his December 2025 resignation and the Competition and Markets Authority's investigation for the first time. Rajagopalan stepped down from his position at the prominent private equity firm after it emerged that the CMA was considering an application to the High Court to ban him from running companies.
The CMA has subsequently dropped its efforts to pursue the boardroom ban, effectively closing the enforcement proceeding. This decision has enabled Rajagopalan to speak publicly about the experience and its personal impact. In his statement, Rajagopalan emphasized the burden imposed by the initial leak of the investigation, noting that public disclosure of the CMA's consideration fundamentally altered the dynamics of the situation. He stated: "I don't know how it leaked but the leak converts you from being innocent until proven guilty to being guilty until proven innocent." This characterization underscores his perspective that media exposure to regulatory scrutiny, prior to any formal charges or findings, effectively reversed the presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion.
The incident highlights broader tensions within the private equity sector regarding regulatory oversight, media transparency, and the reputational impact of watchdog investigations. While the specific grounds for the CMA's consideration of a boardroom ban remain undisclosed in available reporting, Rajagopalan's public comments suggest his primary grievance centers on the investigative process itself and the reputational consequences of leaked information rather than any substantive findings against him.
The CMA has subsequently dropped its efforts to pursue the boardroom ban, effectively closing the enforcement proceeding. This decision has enabled Rajagopalan to speak publicly about the experience and its personal impact. In his statement, Rajagopalan emphasized the burden imposed by the initial leak of the investigation, noting that public disclosure of the CMA's consideration fundamentally altered the dynamics of the situation. He stated: "I don't know how it leaked but the leak converts you from being innocent until proven guilty to being guilty until proven innocent." This characterization underscores his perspective that media exposure to regulatory scrutiny, prior to any formal charges or findings, effectively reversed the presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion.
The incident highlights broader tensions within the private equity sector regarding regulatory oversight, media transparency, and the reputational impact of watchdog investigations. While the specific grounds for the CMA's consideration of a boardroom ban remain undisclosed in available reporting, Rajagopalan's public comments suggest his primary grievance centers on the investigative process itself and the reputational consequences of leaked information rather than any substantive findings against him.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.