In a case that has evoked much public interest, authorities
have finally decided to venture into areas that should have been investigated
long back. This relates to the NSEL case wherein Bombay High Court Panel has
ordered audits into investor claims following discrepancies in figures
submitted by various stakeholders.
Quite in line with Jignesh Shah’s position on the issues,
investigators have found fresh evidence suggesting black money being laundered
by companies considered sister concerns of brokers who traded on the platform.
"It has also been alleged that funds of sister concerns
of brokers, which could have been derived from illegal sources, were used to
trade on the NSEL platform with an intent to legitimize the said funds, which
amounts to money laundering," a senior investigating official said.
Noteworthy in the case is an interim order of the HC panel
which states, “The committee while processing the claims received from various
investors noticed large scale discrepancies between the claims set up by
investors vis-à-vis the data submitted by NSEL. Even the discrepancies in
Permanent Account Number were noticed.” The order further stated that no
reservations be made regarding sharing of information for verification of
claims.
Complaints against brokers have also been made in the past
relating to false assurances, misrepresentation, trading without client’s
authority, modification of client code and selling contracts as investment vehicles.
There is also a case against NSEL brokers and traders alleging creation of fake
ledger accounts in the name of the clients without obtaining their consent.
A senior regulatory official commented on the case calling it
unique as brokers themselves appear to be investors. This again is in line with
Jignesh Shah’s stand on the issue and something FTIL has been vocal all along.
Taking into account the role played by brokers, the
investigation seems to be shaping up as a bottom-up enquiry. Though a bit late
in the day, it could spell be the difference between 63k shareholders of FTIL victimized
by executive overreach or upholding of fiscal, legislative and judicial
prudence.
No comments:
Post a Comment