Probe suggests lottery winner had strained ties with family

As authorities in US probe the mysterious murder of an Indian-origin businessman, new details are emerging about strained relations between members of his family and feud among them over his estate.

Urooj Khan, 46, died of cyanide poisoning under mysterious circumstances last July, a day after he received a cheque of $425,000 as his prize money after taxes for a million-dollar lottery he had won a month ago.

Khan's brother has filed a petition asking Citibank to release information about Khan's assets to "ultimately ensure" that (Khan's) minor daughter from a prior marriage "receives her proper share."

Shabana, 32, may have tried to cash the jackpot cheque after Khan's death, according to court documents, which also showed that Khan's family is questioning if the couple was ever even legally married. Shabana's attorney said she has a marriage certificate from India that is valid in the US.

Khan's brother and sister had won a court order to freeze the lottery winnings after Shabana cashed the cheque. While the police has not named any suspect, Shabana has been questioned by investigators for more than four hours. "Absolutely, positively, you know, she had nothing to do with her husband's death," Shabana's attorney has said.

Illinois Comptroller's Office said, Khan's cheque was cashed in August 15, nearly a month after Khan's death. Khan's estate is estimated to be $1.2 million, which includes in lottery winnings.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus