Pratik Gandhi, a Houston-area real estate operator whose investment business collapsed under tens of millions of dollars in debt, has become the subject of lawsuits from investors, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and an active federal investigation. The case has left more than 200 creditors facing uncertainty over money they say they invested in property deals after being promised attractive returns and real-estate-backed security. Gandhi has denied allegations of fraud and has described the collapse as a business failure rather than an intentional scheme. No criminal conviction or guilty plea has been established in the public records reviewed for this report.
The man at the center of the case is Pratik A. Gandhi, a Houston-area entrepreneur and real estate operator. Public professional profiles associate him with MPIRE Builders and place his professional base in the Houston area. His published biography says he entered entrepreneurship through PJK Entertainment in 2008, later worked in technology and transportation, became involved in real estate through Keller Williams Metropolitan and CiTY LiVN, and moved into an executive role at Mpire Builders in 2017. A 2023 Colliers announcement also identified Gandhi of Mpire Real Estate Group as the buyer of roughly 29.4 acres in Friendswood.
There is an important identification issue. Numerous people share the name Pratik Gandhi, including the Indian actor known for Scam 1992. The subject of this investigation is the Houston real estate operator associated with MPIRE Builders, NVSTORS and Buildvestments, not the actor. Public sources reviewed did not establish a reliable date of birth for the Houston businessman, so his age should not be presented as a confirmed fact.
The financial trouble became public through a wave of civil lawsuits. Investors accused Gandhi and, in several cases, business associate Paul Nguyen, of soliciting money for real estate projects while promising high returns and property collateral. According to court allegations reported by the Houston Chronicle, some investors were told they would hold primary liens on properties securing their investments. Several later discovered that other liens already existed, leaving them in a much weaker position if the properties were foreclosed. Some plaintiffs said they received little or none of their original investment back.
The companies appearing in the litigation include NVSTORS LLC, Buildvestments LLC and Galveston Ocean Views LLC. Court records also identify Gandhi and Nguyen together in multiple disputes. Public-record research additionally connects Gandhi with entities including Potranco Pads LLC and a company spelled NYSTORS LLC, although the precise role and relevance of every entity is not established by the available litigation record. NVSTORS has also appeared under a spelling variation, Nvestors, in court documents.
The scale of the financial problem is striking, but the numbers require careful explanation. Gandhi’s Chapter 7 petition, filed in June 2025, reported that he owed more than 200 people as much as $47 million. His listed assets were between $1 million and $10 million. The $47 million figure therefore represents reported liabilities to creditors, not a judicial finding that Gandhi stole $47 million or that every dollar represents an investor’s fraud loss. The Chronicle also reported that messages filed in litigation showed Gandhi estimating at one point that his total debt could be between $80 million and $96 million while his assets were below $28 million.
The bankruptcy filing changed the legal landscape. Chapter 7 generally places a stay on collection litigation while the bankruptcy process determines what assets and liabilities exist and what, if anything, creditors can recover. When Gandhi filed, active lawsuits against him were paused. Creditors and their lawyers subsequently questioned him under oath about his finances and business activities. Among those creditors was Vijay Gadhavi, whom the bankruptcy filing listed as owed $200,000. Other investors told the Chronicle they had committed retirement savings or money intended for their children’s education.
The case took another turn in August 2025 when the U.S. Postal Inspection Service confirmed that Gandhi was under federal investigation. The agency said the investigation was active and that its Houston division was handling it. Postal inspectors investigate mail-related crimes, but the agency did not disclose what specific criminal conduct, if any, Gandhi might ultimately be accused of committing. An investigation is not a criminal charge, and the public record reviewed does not establish a conviction or guilty plea.
The bankruptcy trustee’s examination raised additional questions. Trustee Ronald Sommers and U.S. Trustee Kevin M. Epstein objected when Gandhi sought to withdraw his bankruptcy case. Epstein said it remained unknown how Gandhi had used approximately $87 million that he had solicited from investors. That statement should not be confused with a finding that $87 million was misappropriated; the issue described in the court proceedings was that the disposition of the money had not been adequately explained.
Gandhi acknowledged receiving between $500,000 and $1 million from business accounts as salary during 2023 and 2024 and said he had previously paid his parents between $5,000 and $7,000 a month for financial support. He also acknowledged that money may have been transferred to Nguyen for expenses, without specifying an amount or time period. Attorneys for D&I Capital separately alleged that approximately $1 million from NVSTORS and several properties had been transferred to Nguyen in 2023. Those allegations were disputed and remain part of the broader litigation record.
Gandhi’s explanation for the collapse was fundamentally different from the investors’ allegations. His attorney, Marcellous McZeal, characterized the losses as the result of approximately $140 million in “catastrophic” business failures rather than fraud. Gandhi told creditors that the business had accumulated too many assets, faced high interest rates and did not have enough time to finish projects. “High interest rates killed us,” he said, according to the Chronicle. Gandhi also said he wanted to return money to investors and had asked for the bankruptcy case to be dismissed so he could rebuild the company.
The civil litigation has produced at least one significant development beyond allegations. The Houston Chronicle reported that a Harris County judge ruled in favor of some fraud claims brought by D&I Capital LLC against Gandhi and Nguyen in a partial judgment. Other lawsuits include claims involving breach of contract, unpaid debt, fraud, conspiracy and attempts to hold individuals personally responsible for conduct attributed to their companies. Gandhi and Nguyen have repeatedly denied multiple fraud and conspiracy allegations.
The litigation record remains active in at least some related proceedings. A Harris County case involving Arsheen Memon, Madhusudhan Bitra and Sreenivas Gundu lists Gandhi, Nguyen, NVSTORS and members of Gandhi’s family among the parties and had discovery and motion activity scheduled into September and October 2026, with later trial settings also appearing in the docket database. Separately, lawsuits involving NVSTORS and Gandhi have been filed in Galveston, Fort Bend and federal court in Illinois. These cases are civil proceedings and their allegations should not be treated as criminal convictions.
As of September 2026, Gandhi’s public professional footprint has not disappeared. His LinkedIn profile continues to associate him with MPIRE Builders and identifies Houston as his location, while public property-record research shows real estate activity connected to him and associated entities extending into 2025 and 2026. That does not establish the exact nature of his current business operations, nor does it demonstrate that the allegations against him have been resolved.
What remains unresolved is the central question confronting the bankruptcy court, investigators and creditors: where did the money go, which investments were properly secured, what assets remain available, and whether the failures resulted from aggressive but unsuccessful real estate financing or conduct that crossed the line into fraud. Those questions cannot be answered simply by the size of the debt or the number of lawsuits. They require the underlying financial records, court findings and, if the federal investigation produces charges, the government’s evidence.
For the investors caught in the collapse, however, the distinction between a failed business and fraudulent conduct is more than a legal technicality. Their money is already missing, and Chapter 7 proceedings may determine how much, if anything, can ultimately be recovered. The case is a reminder that a promised real-estate lien is only as valuable as the title position behind it, that attractive returns do not eliminate investment risk, and that personal trust within a community cannot substitute for independent verification of ownership, liens and financial records. Until the remaining proceedings are resolved, Pratik Gandhi is a defendant and investigation subject—not a person convicted of the alleged fraud. But the unanswered financial questions affecting hundreds of creditors make this a case worth watching closely.
————-
Disclaimer:
Some content on Reportingscams.com is published under our guest post program and is provided by third-party contributors. Reporting scams does not create, verify, or take responsibility for the views, accuracy, or claims expressed in such content.
