UNADAP’S RESPONSE TO MICHAEL PRABHU AND VIMAL PRABHU’S FALSE CLAIM THAT THEY “WON” THE 2022 COURT CASE
In response to the document circulated by Michael Prabhu dated 10 October 2026
From the office of the Chief Legal Officer – October 12, 2026

​

If the claim is true that Michael Prabhu WON the case, then let him show the public the court judgement order, that the case was won, and UNADAP will award Michael (Mohan) Prabhu 1 Crore rupees. If he is unable to produce the court judgement; then let this prove once and for all that Michael Prabhu, his romantic partner Sunil Francis Lobo and his wife-and-child-abuser son, Vimal Prabhu are manipulators, liars and conspiracy theorists.

​

<<<READ: United Nations issued a written document that Michael Prabhu, his romantic partner, Sunil Franics Lobo, and wife-beater his son Vimal Prabhu are frauds>>>
 

The document titled “The 2022 court case that we won against Dominic Dixon”, circulated by Michael Prabhu on 10 October 2026, contains allegations against Dr. Dominic F. Dixon and the United Nations Association for Development and Peace (UNADAP). It reproduces correspondence with government officials and United Nations offices, allegations concerning intelligence inquiries, and a written statement filed by the defendants in Civil Suit O.S. No. 6795/2021.

UNADAP considers it necessary to place the matter in its proper context. The intelligence inquiries, government correspondence, United Nations communications and civil litigation are distinct matters. They must not be conflated or presented as though the existence of complaints or a defendants’ pleading establishes the truth of the allegations or the outcome of the court case.

​

PREFACE
It is widely known, according to accounts available to UNADAP, that Michael (Mohan) Prabhu has struggled with serious psychological and psychiatric issues for decades, has been ostracised by sections of the Church, and is regarded by many as a pariah. His son, Vimal Prabhu, has likewise been associated with allegations of domestic abuse, including claims that his wife sought protection for their child from her husband. Beyond these deeply troubling concerns, UNADAP considers the conduct of both men to be characterised by venomous attacks, dishonesty and a willingness to go to extraordinary lengths to defame and abuse innocent individuals.

It is against this background that we address this matter. Despite false complaints made against UNADAP and its officers by these perpetrators, the authorities in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu conducted inquiries and, as UNADAP maintains, subsequently issued clearances. Yet, nearly five years later, these individuals are attempting to distort and fabricate the facts to conceal their own falsehoods and undermine the truth. Further criminal proceedings are in progress. This response is therefore intended to expose the inconsistencies, lies and manipulation, and correct the record and ensure that those responsible are held accountable through due process of law.

1. Intelligence inquiries in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
The material circulated by Mr. Prabhu includes correspondence from December 2021 in which Vimal Ajay Prabhu stated that he had raised allegations concerning UNADAP with intelligence officials in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The complaint was made on 18.12.2021, but no FIR was filed against UNADAP or its officers. Only an enquiry was conducted.

UNADAP’s position is that it did not evade scrutiny. It welcomed the opportunity for the allegations to be examined, cooperated with the inquiries and complied with the investigative process.

According to records, on 09.03.2023, the Karnataka State intelligence issued a statement that all allegations made against UNADAP and Dr. Dominic F Dixon by Michael Prabhu and Vimal Prabu, were indeed false, misleading and malafide. UNADAP has published records relating to this issue under the heading “FRAUD ALERT” on its website.

The distinction is important: the fact that someone submitted a complaint or requested an investigation does not establish that the allegations in that complaint were true. The outcome must be assessed by reference to the relevant authorities’ records and findings.
 

UNADAP therefore calls for the complete documentary record, including the judgement copy that these men claim to have won.
 

2. Complaints to government officials and records obtained under RTI
The circulated material also contains allegations and correspondence directed at government officials concerning Dr. Dominic F. Dixon and UNADAP.

UNADAP states that it pursued these matters through applications under the Right to Information framework and holds the resulting records on file.

Those records are relevant to understanding what was communicated to public authorities, what information was sought, and what responses or official records were obtained.

A complaint submitted to a government official is not equivalent to an official finding that the complaint is true. The correspondence and RTI records must be examined in their entirety before conclusions are drawn about the allegations against UNADAP or its Executive Director.
 

UNADAP maintains that the documentary record should be considered as a whole, rather than relying selectively on allegations circulated by the complainants.

The RTI had revealed and stated by the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, that all the allegations made by these men are false and fabricated.

3. Allegations submitted to United Nations offices
The document reproduces emails dated 1, 2 and 6 December 2021 in which Vimal Prabhu raised allegations concerning UNADAP with Samarth Pathak of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and Rajiv Chandran of the United Nations Information Centre (UNIC).
The emails demonstrate that allegations were submitted and that the complainant sought confirmation concerning UNADAP’s relationship with the United Nations. They also record his statements about contacting intelligence officials.

However, the existence of these emails does not, by itself, establish that the allegations were true, that the United Nations adopted them, or that a United Nations office made an adverse finding against UNADAP.

UNADAP’s position is that the allegations against the organisation and its officers were examined and that the organisation and its officers were found innocent of the accusations, according to records held by UNADAP.

The original correspondence and any formal conclusions must be assessed on their actual wording and context. An allegation submitted to a United Nations office must not be confused with a finding made by that office.

4. United Nations correspondence concerning the allegations
UNADAP states that it possesses written communication from the United Nations which it understands to record that Michael Prabhu and Vimal Prabhu misled the organisation and characterises them as frauds.

UNADAP considers this correspondence relevant to the allegations now being recirculated. The original letter should be examined in full, including its date, issuing office, precise wording and context, so that readers can determine exactly what was communicated.
It is important to distinguish between an allegation made by a third party, correspondence from a United Nations official, and a formal institutional finding. The original document, not a paraphrase, should determine the exact language used in any public statement.
UNADAP stands by its position concerning the correspondence it holds and maintains that it should be considered alongside the allegations made against the organisation and its officers.

5. The 9 December 2021 letter, requests for mercy and UNADAP’s humanitarian decision
The material circulated by Mr. Prabhu contains a letter dated 9 December 2021 addressed to his lawyer, in which he stated that he would be unable to attend the court hearing scheduled for 14 December 2021. <<<Read the letter>>>

In that letter, Mr. Prabhu stated that he was completely blind in his right eye due to glaucoma, had undergone open-heart surgery and suffered from ankylosing spondylosis. He described the condition as progressive, incurable and debilitating, and stated that the bones of his neck, spine and hips were 95% fused. He further stated that he could barely walk at home, let alone travel.

He also stated that his 75-year-old wife was undergoing cancer treatment.

These are Mr. Prabhu’s own statements, reproduced in the material he is now circulating. They form part of the documentary record and should be acknowledged in their proper context.

UNADAP’s decision on humanitarian grounds
According to UNADAP’s account, Mr. Prabhu also wrote to multiple bishops, Church leaders and his own lawyer, appealing for mercy and explaining his personal and family circumstances.

UNADAP states that, in view of these appeals and on humanitarian grounds, it decided to withdraw the civil and criminal proceedings it had initiated against the individuals concerned. This was a decision taken on humanitarian considerations, as described by UNADAP; it should not be represented as a judicial finding that the allegations made by either side had been proven. <<<READ MEMO OF WITHDRAWL>>>

UNADAP further states that, at the relevant time, Vimal Prabhu had gone into hiding.

UNADAP also states that concerns arose by authorities, regarding Michael Prabhu’s psychological wellbeing.

 

The central point is that UNADAP states it chose a humanitarian course of action in response to appeals made by Mr. Prabhu. That decision should not subsequently be misrepresented as proof that the perpetrators had prevailed in court.

6. Civil Suit O.S. No. 6795/2021 — a separate legal matter
The civil suit must be considered separately from the intelligence inquiries, government complaints, RTI applications and United Nations correspondence described above.

The circulated compilation includes a document dated 13 February 2022 described as a “Memorandum of Written Statement” filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 6795/2021 before the City Civil and Sessions Court at Bengaluru.

The document identifies UNADAP, represented by Dr. Dominic F. Dixon, as the plaintiff and Mohan Prabhu, also identified as Michael Prabhu, and another defendant as the defendants. It records the defendants’ denials of the plaintiff’s claims and seeks dismissal of the suit.
 

A written statement is a pleading in which defendants present their response to a plaintiff’s case. It is not a judgment delivered by the court.
Consequently, the written statement reproduced in the compilation establishes the position taken by the defendants in their pleading; it does not, by itself, establish that the court dismissed the suit, ruled in their favour or declared that they had won.

The humanitarian withdrawal must be understood in its proper context
UNADAP states that it withdrew the proceedings on humanitarian grounds after Mr. Prabhu appealed for mercy through correspondence with Church leaders, bishops and his lawyer.

That decision must be distinguished from a judicial determination on the merits of the allegations. A decision to withdraw proceedings for humanitarian reasons does not automatically establish that the opposing party won the case or that the allegations against UNADAP were true.
To substantiate the title “The 2022 court case that we won against Dominic Dixon”, the relevant final judgment, order or authoritative court record establishing the outcome must be produced and examined.

If the proceedings were withdrawn rather than decided after a full adjudication, that procedural history should be described accurately. The legal effect of any withdrawal must be determined from the actual court record and applicable law.

The civil suit is not the same thing as the intelligence inquiries. Police inquiries, complaints to government officials, RTI applications, United Nations correspondence and a civil court proceeding are distinct processes, each with its own records and outcomes. None should be used as a substitute for evidence of the final disposition of O.S. No. 6795/2021.

7. Allegations in the circulated compilation must not be treated as established findings
The compilation contains serious allegations concerning Dr. Dixon’s qualifications, professional associations, personal history and conduct, as well as allegations concerning UNADAP’s identity and its relationship with the United Nations.

These allegations appear in correspondence, commentary and the defendants’ written statement. Their inclusion in a document does not, by itself, establish their truth or demonstrate that a competent authority or court accepted them as proven.
The same standard must apply to every party. Claims made by UNADAP should be supported by its documentary records, and claims made by the complainants should likewise be supported by reliable evidence and relevant official findings.

This is particularly important when allegations concern criminal conduct, professional qualifications or institutional affiliations. Such claims should not be presented as established facts merely because they have been repeated in emails, pleadings or online publications.
UNADAP and Dr. Dominic F Dixon had produced to the Hon’ble Courts, and to the State Police Intelligence, all copies of credentials, thereby rebutting the false allegation and conspiracy theories by these father-son criminals. Upon high level investigations, it was only then that UNADAP and Dr. Dominic F Dixon were exonerated from the allegations, and a written statement was issued by these authorities.
 

8. UNADAP’s position and intended legal action
UNADAP rejects the suggestion that the circulation of complaints, allegations and a defendants’ written statement, without the relevant final court record, establishes wrongdoing by the organisation or its Executive Director.

UNADAP maintains that it cooperated with the relevant intelligence inquiries, holds records concerning police clearances and government correspondence, and possesses United Nations communications that it considers relevant to the allegations now being recirculated.
UNADAP also maintains that its decision to withdraw proceedings on humanitarian grounds should not be misrepresented as an admission of wrongdoing or as proof that the other party won the civil case.

Notice of intended legal action
In view of the allegations and material now being circulated, UNADAP intends to pursue appropriate criminal legal proceedings against Michael Prabhu and Vimal Prabhu, subject to review of the evidence and advice from its legal counsel.

UNADAP also intends to extend appropriate assistance to other individuals or organisations who believe they have been affected by the conduct or publications at issue. Any such assistance will be directed towards documenting the relevant facts, preserving evidence and helping affected parties explore lawful remedies through the appropriate authorities.

Any legal action will be pursued through lawful procedures and on the basis of evidence. The purpose is to ensure that the relevant allegations are examined by the competent authorities and that the rights of all parties are respected.

UNADAP will not treat allegations as proven merely because they have been published, nor does it expect its own assertions to be accepted without supporting records. It calls for a fair examination of the evidence and an accurate account of the legal history.

9. Conclusion: the documentary record must speak for itself
The public deserves a complete and accurate account, not conclusions drawn from selected emails or pleadings.
The relevant distinctions are clear:
•    Intelligence inquiries: UNADAP states that it cooperated and received police clearances.
•    Government complaints and RTI: UNADAP states that it holds records obtained through the RTI process concerning the communications made to public authorities.
•    United Nations correspondence: UNADAP states that it holds communications relevant to the allegations made against the organisation and its officers.
•    The 9 December 2021 letter: Mr. Prabhu himself described serious health difficulties and his wife’s cancer treatment.
•    Humanitarian withdrawal: UNADAP states that it withdrew proceedings on humanitarian grounds after appeals for mercy.
•    Civil Suit O.S. No. 6795/2021: The defendants’ written statement is not a final judgment. The claim of victory must be assessed against the actual court record.
•    Future legal action: UNADAP intends to pursue appropriate remedies and assist other affected parties through lawful channels.
The fundamental principle is that an allegation is not a finding, a pleading is not a judgment, and a humanitarian decision to withdraw proceedings is not, by itself, proof that the opposing party won.

​

S/d
Office of the Chief Legal Officer, UNADAP