Latest news with #RegistrarofCompanies
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Noida authority comes up with one-time waivers scheme for industrial plot owners
NOIDA: The Noida authority on Wednesday said it has decided to give a one-time relaxation under its new Unified Policy for the existing industrial plot owners. The relief is focused at industrial allottees struggling to meet construction and operational deadlines, offering them extended timelines and waiver of certain penalties, officials said. The policy, implemented on February 25, allows allottees—whose deadlines to complete construction and make plots functional have either expired or will expire within a year—to seek a final extension. 'The plots up to 20,000 square metre (sqm) are eligible for a one-year extension, while larger plots can get an additional two years. The extension comes with a fee of 4% of the plot's premium for the first year and 6% for the second,' said Noida authority (industrial department) deputy general manager Shobha Kushwaha. Officials said industrial plots of up to 20,000 sqm now have time till February 25, 2026, while those exceeding this size can complete their projects by February 25, 2027. 'Despite issuing the notice around 15 days ago, the response has been poor. We urge industrialists and factory owners to take advantage of this opportunity,' said Kushwaha. Further, for allottees whose two-year extension period has already expired or will expire in a year, the authority will apply the earlier extension fee rates until February 25, 2025. Post this date, the new 4%-6% rate structure will be enforced, officials said. To further support businesses, the authority has waived the ₹500-per day penalty for delays in reporting changes in shareholding (CIS)—a requirement under the new policy. The policy mandates allottees to inform the authority within 90 days of any change in company shareholding or directors, failing which the daily penalty applied. This provision did not exist in the earlier policy. Under the relaxation, allottees who made such changes in the Registrar of Companies (ROC) but failed to notify the authority by February 25, 2025, can now do so without penalty—if they submit the required documents within 90 days of the May 16 order, i.e., by August 15. This provision is expected to benefit nearly 1,500 units. The relief measures come following representations by industries facing hurdles with time extensions, changes in shareholding (CIS) compliance, and procedural clearances. In its 217th board meeting, the authority board authorised CEO Lokesh M to streamline these challenges.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Noida to give up to 2 years' relaxation to industrial allottees under UP scheme
Noida: Noida Authority announced a one-time relaxation for industrial allottees struggling to meet project timelines following the implementation of the new unified policy on Feb 25, this year. Allottees whose deadline to complete construction and make their plots functional expired or will expire within a year are eligible for a final extension – one year for plots up to 20,000 sqm and two years for larger plots. This is subject to an extension fee of 4% for the first year and 6% for the second. Hence, plots up to 20,000 sqm have time until Feb 25, 2026, to complete construction, while larger plots have until Feb 25, 2027. "We published the notice about 15 days ago, but the response has been very poor so far. Industrialists and factory owners should come forward and avail themselves of the benefits," a senior official said. Additionally, since the Unified Policy allows paid extensions for only up to two years, in cases where this limit has expired or will expire within a year, the extension fee will be calculated at previously applicable rates until Feb 25. Thereafter, the new fee structure of 4% for the first year and 6% for the second will apply. An estimated 600–700 industrial units are expected to benefit from this decision. Overall, there are around 11,000 registered units in Noida. Under the current Unified Policy, allottees must inform the Authority within 90 days of any change in company shareholding. Failure to do so attracts a penalty of Rs 500-per-day — a provision absent in the previous policy. The Authority waived the Rs 500-per-day penalty for delayed reporting of changes in shareholding (CIS) for old allottees. Officials reiterated that CIS compliance is a requirement under the scheme. As a one-time relief, allottees who made changes in their company's list of directors or shareholders in the Registrar of Companies (ROC) but failed to inform the Authority by Feb 25, this year, will be exempt from the penalty, provided they submit the required documents within 90 days from the issuance of a specific order in this regard. "As the order was issued on May 16, it gives companies time until Aug 15 to comply. After this deadline, penalties under the unified policy will apply. Around 1,500 enterprises are likely to benefit from this provision," an official said. During its 217th Board meeting held in March, the Authority acknowledged the difficulties faced in disposing of project-related services and applications under the Unified Policy. Responding to repeated requests from allottees regarding issues such as transfer fees, CIS fees, time extensions, and late penalties, Noida CEO Lokesh M was authorised to resolve these challenges. Sudhir Shrivastav, spokesperson for the Noida Entrepreneurs Association (NEA), said, "The Authority should take into account disruptions caused by the monsoon and restrictions imposed under GRAP measures while deciding the one- or two-year extension period. In practical terms, entrepreneurs are left with only a few effective months to complete their projects. The focus should be on making industrial units operational, not on burdening allottees unnecessarily. Many entrepreneurs were unable to complete construction due to the Covid-19 pandemic and delays in getting possession of land from the Authority."Commenting on CIS-related charges, he added, "Such charges and penalties exist only in Uttar Pradesh. They should be completely abolished. However, we welcome the decision to waive the fine for the next three months."
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Auditors flag irregularities in Indian units of Chinese brands Oppo, Realme
Auditors of Chinese smartphone brands Oppo and Realme have raised several concerns about the financial and operational integrity of their India units, intensifying scrutiny on the firms already embroiled in multiple regulatory investigations. The issues were disclosed in recent filings with the Registrar of Companies (RoC), The Economic Times reported on Tuesday. Oppo flagged on negative net worth, external borrowings Oppo Mobiles India, the third-largest smartphone brand in the country, was flagged for having a negative net worth of ₹3,551 crore as of FY24, driven by accumulated business losses from previous years. The auditor also noted an adverse debt-equity ratio and significant external borrowings, including ₹1,668 crore from its Hong Kong-based parent and ₹414 crore in loans from HSBC Bank. Current borrowings also stood at ₹2,085 crore. The company is reportedly involved in several material litigations and is under regulatory examination, with uncertain outcomes that may impact its financial stability and operational continuity. Raising doubts about long-term viability, the auditor emphasised material uncertainties about Oppo's ability to continue as a going concern. Oppo says company is profitable Oppo, however, maintains it was profitable in FY24 and expressed confidence in managing short-term cash flow gaps through working capital arrangements or support from its parent. However, any equity infusion would require government approval under Press Note 3, mandated for FDI from neighbouring countries, posing a potential bottleneck in securing timely funds. Realme pulled up for procedural lapses Realme Mobile Telecommunications India, the fifth-largest player in its category in India, was also pulled up by its auditor for procedural lapses and inadequate record-keeping. Concerns were raised about the accuracy of financial accounts, with questions over the completeness of its FY24 profit and loss statement. These disclosures come amid ongoing probes involving customs duty disputes, income tax irregularities, and alleged money laundering by Chinese smartphone makers.
Barnama
19-05-2025
- Business
- Barnama
Company Director Claims Trial To Giving False Statements To Registrar Of Companies
KUALA LUMPUR, May 19 (Bernama) -- A construction company director pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court here today to three counts of making false statements to the Registrar of Companies three years ago. Juliana Jamian, 38, entered her plea after the charges were read out before Judge Mohd Zaki Mohd Salleh. For the first two charges, she is accused of submitting false statements to the Registrar of Companies concerning her appointment as director of UTS Maju Construction Sdn Bhd and the resignation of Wali Ullah Khan as director of the same company through Form Section 58 dated Sept 30, 2022. Juliana is also charged with making a false statement to the Registrar of Companies regarding the transfer of 299,998 shares from Wali Ullah Khan to herself, as stated in Form Section 51 dated Oct 8, 2022. The three offences were allegedly committed at the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM), Menara SSM@Sentral, KL Sentral, on Sept 30 and Oct 8, 2022. The charges were framed under Section 593(b) of the Companies Act 2016 (Act 777), read together with Section 34 of the same Act, which provides for a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment, a fine of up to RM3 million, or both, upon conviction. Earlier, SSM prosecuting officer Farieza Hazreen Salehuddin proposed bail of RM10,000 for each charge, while defence counsel Muhamad 'Aizat Adli Zalil requested that bail be set at RM3,000 per charge. The court allowed Juliana bail of RM10,000 for all charges and ordered her to surrender her passport The case has been fixed for mention on 4 June.
NZ Herald
14-05-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
NZ's top 10 banned business people: Fraud, bankruptcies, and lifetime bans
Committing Companies Act offences relating to managing a company, or being convicted of a dishonesty offence such as fraud, also triggers an automatic five-year ban. But sometimes the usual approach is not enough. The Registrar of Companies is empowered to issue prohibition orders for up to 10 years on repeat offenders. In extreme cases, the registrar can also make applications to the High Court for longer periods of restriction. This can include barring people from running or managing a business for life. These uplifted penalties have been granted five times over the past decade, with the first lifetime ban handed down in 2019 and a further two ultimate sanctions granted since. A Herald search of Gazette filings has identified the recipients of the longest banning orders imposed over the past decade. Most have extensive prior business failures or bankruptcies, and many have criminal convictions, for dishonesty offences or skirting bankruptcy restrictions, related to their management style. All of the top 10 are male. The first woman – Kendall Twigden, the director of foreign-exchange trading software disaster Phoenix Forex – appears at 11th place with an 8.5-year ban imposed in 2017. This is a ranked list of New Zealand's top 10 longest-banned business people, as determined by the penalties imposed by the Registrar of Companies and the High Court. 1st= Lance Jack Ryan (lifetime ban) Lance Ryan (left) next to Jimmie McNicholl, was sentenced at the Christchurch District Court in 2019 for the Arena Capital Ponzi scheme. Ryan went on to receive the first lifetime ban from directing or mananging a business. Photo / Kurt Bayer Lance Jack Ryan earns first place on the list by virtue of being the first to attract the ultimate sanction: a lifetime ban. Previously known as Lance Thompson, he has two prior bankruptcies and in 2005 was convicted of opening bank accounts in dead people's names and applying for social welfare benefits. About a decade ago he teamed up with David Blake to run the Hygiene Foundation, a faux industry standards organisation that attracted complaints from clients and employees. Ryan and Blake were prohibited from running a company at this point and in 2017 were convicted of breaching these restrictions. Ryan reached his nadir with Arena Capital, pitched as a foreign-exchange trading firm but was in fact a Ponzi scheme. A total of $8.4 million was raised from 900 investors, and a judge overseeing the Serious Fraud Office prosecution described the business as 'an elaborate farce perpetrated on investors'. In 2018, Ryan pleaded guilty to charges of fraud, false accounting and forgery and was sentenced to seven years and six months in prison. In 2019, Justice Geoffrey Venning made case history in banning Ryan from running companies for life following an application from the Registrar of Companies. 'Mr Ryan has been guilty of persistent and ongoing dishonest behaviour involving the use of the company structures to obtain money from the public. His case is one of the most serious cases and is an appropriate case for a lifetime ban,' Venning said. 1st= Raymond Anthony Andrews (lifetime ban) Raymond Andrews appears in the dock for sentencing at the Auckland District Court in 2019. He has received a lifetime ban from directing or managing companies. Photo / Peter Meecham Raymond Andrews' trail of business destruction runs back decades, with tax evasion convictions dating back to 2002. He was bankrupted in 2008 and has been undischarged since. Bankruptcy restrictions were no barrier to new ventures, including a laser hair removal business the Official Assignee had refused permission for him to be engaged in. He was convicted and imprisoned in 2013, 2017 and 2019. The latter offending occurred while he was on bail, with the judge in his case recording the Official Assignee believed his was the 'most egregious occasion which they [were] aware of in relation to persons who have continued to trade while subject to orders of bankruptcy'. In 2023, Justice Anne Hinton, hearing an application from the registrar to bar Andrews permanently, granted the order: 'Mr Andrews has shown complete disregard for the law and for his bankruptcy. The financial losses have been significant. Mr Andrews is entirely unremorseful. I see no prospect of rehabilitation and a high prospect that he may engage in similar conduct if the door is open for him to do so.' Andrews, now in his mid-70s, unsuccessfully represented himself at that hearing where he told the court he was studying law at AUT and hoped to one day be admitted to the bar. 1st= Michael Le Roy (lifetime ban) Neighbours of Michael Le Roy's failing tyre-recycling business in Amberley "just snapped" and set the refuse pile ablaze. Photo / Environment Canterbury The freshest name on this list, just last week the High Court at Christchurch imposed a lifetime ban on Christchurch junkman Michael Le Roy. A hazard in the waste management sector, he was first bankrupted in 2010 when his company went under leaving 500 tonnes of rubbish abandoned on a lifestyle block. He returned from bankruptcy purgatory to build a 400,000-tyre mountain in Christchurch with plans to process and recycle the pile of used rubber, but his trail of trash and debts again mounted. In 2018, he was bankrupted again and the cost of dealing with a stash of old tyres was estimated to be $500,000. Investigators found he continued to manage businesses despite the restrictions of insolvency, including using a family member to register another tyre-recycling business. By 2020, he was facing a slew of court prosecutions, with Inland Revenue chasing him for tax evasion and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment accusing him of running a business while bankrupt. He was convicted of forgery, tax fraud and misleading the Official Assignee and sentenced to three years in prison. Justice Raoul Neave told Le Roy at the time that: 'Considerable havoc has been left in your wake.' Le Roy was released on parole in September 2024. 4th Lawrence Alexander David Branson-Marsters (15 years) Serial fraudster Lawrence Alexander David Branson-Marsters received a then-record company director ban of 15 years in 2022. Here he appears for sentencing at the Auckland District Court. Photo / Dean Purcell He was born David Lawrence Monk, but went on to legally change his name three times. But by 2023, his past – with more than 100 convictions for dishonesty – caught up with him and he was imprisoned as Lawrence Alexander David Branson-Marsters. His trail of hazardous business behaviour and fraud runs back decades. In 2001, he fled New Zealand after Inland Revenue began investigating his affairs, and it was three years of extradition proceedings and a deportation before he returned home to plead guilty to 48 charges of filing fraudulent GST returns and was imprisoned. He kept racking up dishonesty convictions, and registering companies – using false names and addresses – despite being prohibited from doing so. In 2015, he was again convicted of fraud, this time for convincing a neighbour to invest in one of his companies, and received a five-year prison sentence. The wheels at this point began turning to see his corporate straitjacket made near-permanent. As well as prosecuting him for skirting bankruptcy restrictions, the registrar applied to the High Court in 2022 for an extended prohibition order and he was banned from directing or managing a company for a further 15 years. The following year Judge Evangelos Thomas sentenced him to seven months in prison for his latest offending. 'There is a high public interest in protecting the market from you,' Thomas said. 5th David Blake (12 years) David Blake's involvement with the Hygiene Foundation while subject to bankruptcy restrictions was one of many offences that led to him being banned from running a company for 12 years. Photo / Dean Purcell Blake has clocked up three bankruptcies to date, with $720,290 in unpaid debts accrued, some under his previous legal name David Hughey. Each period of bankruptcy came with complaints that he continued to manage businesses during his statutory three-year ban. By 2012 he was working with Lance Ryan in the Hygiene Foundation, where Blake used his business partner and wife as front people to try to skirt bankruptcy restrictions. The registrar in 2019 sought orders to ban Blake and Ryan for life, but Justice Venning considered Ryan's criminal fraud with the Arena Capital Ponzi scheme marked him as clearly a more serious risk than his one-time business partner and elected to bar Blake for only 12 years. 'Despite his protestations of ignorance, the pattern of behaviour was clear and deliberate,' Venning said. 6th Robert James Cottle (10 years) Robert "Bob" Cottle's attempts to raise money for a gold mine in Colombia was subject to FMA warnings, hundreds of thousands of dollars lost to international scammers and, ultimately, saw him given a 10-year banning order. Nelson man Robert Cottle, better known as Bob, had big international dreams. His first business venture attracting adverse attention claimed to have contracts with the Estonian Government to manufacture railway sleepers. It failed, and he was bankrupted in 2006. Days after emerging from bankruptcy restrictions in 2009, he incorporated Infratech Mining, claiming to be in possession of valuable gold mining licences in Columbia and just being in need of a few tens of millions of capital to develop them. Subsequent court rulings determined the licences never existed, or if they did, they were not owned by Infratech. Infratech never engaged in any actual resource extraction. It did, however, engage in a series of capital and loan-raising from local investors to pursue offshore loans that liquidators later determined were advance-fee frauds. 'Insofar as Infratech's creditors and investors were concerned, Mr Cottle was playing a form of Russian roulette with their money,' the registrar said of Infratech's business strategy of paying shareholder funds to scammers. Infratech eventually went into liquidation, causing $3m in losses to investors, triggering the registrar to investigate and later ban him from future business enterprises. The report underpinning a 10-year ban on Cottle – the longest prohibition yet handed out by the registrar when it was imposed in 2016 – indicated it was unclear exactly what motivated the man. The deputy registrar said in his report: 'Liquidators speculated whether Mr Cottle was a cunning or cynical conman or a credulous fool. I am inclined to the view that he was both.' 7th= David Dayanand Sharma (9 Years) David Sharma ran a property management business that failed to pay taxes or lodge bonds, leading to him being banned from directing or managing a company for nine years. A real estate agent and property manager who went rogue, liquidators point to David Sharma's previously profitable business paying loans for a family trust-owned property in 2016 as the moment matters began to curdle. The taxman and his clients began to start being short-changed, with GST and PAYE payments missed, and bond payments siphoned off instead of being properly lodged. Two years later Sharma tipped the company into liquidation, but the registrar noted the rot had set in long before. 'The company was already one of the walking dead. Mr Sharma administered the coup de grace before the IRD could.' But having appointed liquidators, Sharma then refused to co-operate with them. He provided unfulfilled promises that family interests would make creditors whole. His companies were found to have accurate financial statements or accounting records, leaving liquidators having to reconstruct the sorry state of affairs and causing the registrar to employ nautical metaphors: 'It is akin to a ship's captain going into reef infested waters without a navigation chart.' In handing down a nine-year banning order in 2019 the registrar concluded: 'Mr Sharma has never acknowledged that what he did was wrong and not demonstrated any remorse. I consider that then, and now, Mr Sharma has no ethical compass. I consider Mr Sharma to be a menace, and a danger to the public.' 7th= Steven Wayne Morrow (9 years) Steven Morrow set up three different companies in an attempt to avoid paying his tax debts. Photo / NZME Steven Morrow is a repeat tax evader whose ban was based on concerns he would again go on to operate businesses that provide him personal benefit but leave creditors – mostly IRD in his case – hanging for millions. In 2016, Morrow was sentenced to nearly three years in prison after pleading guilty to 40 charges of tax evasion. Those charges concerned one company of three set up by Morrow that, according to liquidators and IRD, followed a pattern of failing to pay tax and shifting activity to a new entity as creditors started liquidation proceedings. The registrar, in ordering him banned for nine years in 2016, said Morrow's failings were not arcane: 'This is not a failing on a technical level. This goes to the very basic failings of a person who overrides any sense of what is right to do what benefits him personally.' His history also counted against him, the registrar noted: 'Mr Morrow's track record is a real issue. Mr Morrow got home detention in 2009 for stealing PAYE. Yet Mr Morrow did the same thing again on a massive scale, which was premeditated and repeated.' Morrow's ban expires at the end of this year. 7th= John Edward Clancy (9 Years) Developer John Clancy was the man behind Global Homes, a cluster of companies that collapsed in 2015 leading to total losses to creditors of $4.3m, including $1.4m owed to IRD. The taxman narrowed in on one part of Global Homes, and successfully prosecuted Clancy for 12 counts of tax evasion and in 2017, he was sentenced to 14 months in prison. The registrar, in a 2018 report prepared to impose a nine-year ban on Clancy from directing or managing companies, said in relation to Global Homes: 'He effectively used the companies as his personal playthings.' After being released from prison, Clancy was for a time employed at tiny home developer Cosy Homes. That relationship, however, quickly soured and his employers in 2022 secured a ruling from the Employment Relations Authority that he had misused company information to set up rival company Living Little and ordered Clancy to pay $24,000. 7th Richard Zongyan Lee (9 years) Richard Zongyan Lee's Starplus Homes went into liquidation in 2013, leaving these Hamilton homes unfinished and a string of complaints from clients and subcontractors. His conduct with the company resulted in him being slapped with a nine-year banning order. Photo / Christine Cornege Richard Zongyan Lee first hit the headlines in early 2011 when his Starplus Homes – a major developer in Auckland and the Waikato – began attracting complaints from buyers of shoddy workmanship and from subcontractors of unpaid invoices. By April 2013 the gig was up and liquidators were appointed, who found Starplus had managed to accrue $34m in unsecured creditors off the back of only $1000 in shareholder capital. An investigation later found that in the lead-up to liquidation, Lee had hived off properties and assets into another entity he controlled, or to certain creditors to settle in preference to his vast other debts. A report prepared by the registrar in 2015 to ban him from managing or directing a company for nine years said Lee had 'no concept of governance or the duties of a director' and had abused limited liability structures to ignore creditors. 'If a person is to be a director he or she must have good personal ethics and must be able to be trusted. Mr Lee is lacking in both characteristics. The business world needs protection from Mr Lee,' the registrar concluded. Lee's ban, imposed almost a decade ago, expired in May last year. – Additional reporting by Chris Knox Matt Nippert is an Auckland-based investigations reporter covering white-collar and transnational crimes and the intersection of politics and business. He has won more than a dozen awards for his journalism – including twice being named Reporter of the Year – and joined the Herald in 2014 after having spent the decade prior reporting from business newspapers and national magazines.
