Latest news with #TNPID)Act
New Indian Express
4 days ago
- Business
- New Indian Express
Emu farm MD gets 10 years RI for Rs 7.61 crore fraud involving 385 investors
COIMBATORE: A special court for cases under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act in Coimbatore on Friday sentenced the managing director of an emu farming company to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for defrauding 385 investors to the tune of Rs 7.61 crore. The convict, MS Guru alias Gurusamy (46), was the managing director of Susi Emu Farms India Private Limited, headquartered at Perundurai in Erode district. He resided at Sakthi Nagar in Kunnathur, Perundurai. Special Judge M N Senthil Kumar handed down the sentence to Guru following a decade-long trial. In addition to the prison term, the court imposed a fine of Rs 7, 89,25,000 on the company and its director, of which Rs 7.89 crore is to be proportionately distributed among the duped investors, according to Special Public Prosecutor K Muthu Vijayan. The case dates back to 2012 when the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in Salem district registered an FIR against the company and its MD. Investigations revealed that Gurusamy had launched the firm in 2010, operating out of Raja Street in Perundurai, and promoted fraudulent investment schemes under the guise of emu farming.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Susi Emu Farms MD gets 10 years rigorous imprisonment in 2012 Ponzi scheme case
The special court for the trial of cases under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act in Coimbatore on Friday sentenced the proprietor of an emu farm in Erode to 10-year rigorous imprisonment for cheating 385 investors of ₹7.61 crore around 13 years ago. Special Judge M.N. Senthil Kumar awarded the punishment to M.S. Guru alias Gurusamy, 46, managing director of Susi Emu Farms (India) Private Limited that operated out of Perundurai in Erode district. The court also imposed a total fine of ₹7,89,25,000 on the company and Gurusamy, and of this sum, ₹7,89,00,000 should be distributed among the 385 investors proportionately, said K. Muthu Vijayan, Special Public Prosecutor, who appeared in the case. The court delivered the judgment in the 2012 case registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) in Salem against the company and its MD. According to the prosecution, the company cheated 385 investors of ₹7,61,09,300 through Ponzi schemes, which were disguised as contract farming of emus. The trial was completed in the special court on Friday. The court found the company and its MD guilty of offences under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (default on repayment of deposits and interest honouring the commitment) of the TNPID Act. Gurusamy was awarded seven years and three years of rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC and another 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 5 of the TNPID Act. The sentences will run concurrently. The court also ordered that the period of detention already undergone by Gurusamy, if any, should be set off.
Time of India
24-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Evolve mechanism to address grievances in fin fraud cases: HC
Madurai: Madras high court has observed that the govt has to evolve a mechanism to ensure that the grievances of victims in financial fraud cases are addressed and the object of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act, 1997, is achieved. The court was hearing a petition seeking a direction to Economic Offences Wing (EOW) officials in Trichy district to file a final report in a financial fraud case. Petitioner Hemalatha, a teacher, invested money in a company called Sparrow Global Trade. The company lured her and several others to invest in the firm for huge returns and cheated them. She stated that though the case was registered in 2022, the final report has not been filed yet. Deputy superintendent of police, EOW Trichy, submitted before the court that Raja alias Alagarsamy, along with other accused, ran various shell companies including Elfin E Com Private Ltd. Their modus operandi was to lure the public to deposit money by advertising various delusive high-yielding investment schemes and cheat them. Justice B Pugalendhi observed that though properties worth about Rs139 crore were identified, they are yet to be attached by officials. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like เทรดทองCFDs ด้วยค่าสเปรดที่ต่ำที่สุด IC Markets สมัคร Undo So far, more than 7,000 people have lost crores of rupees deposited in Elfin Group Companies. It was quite unusual that the common man was approached easily by the company, and the EOW was not aware of such an activity. Mere registration of FIR in financial fraud cases would not serve any purpose since the object of TNPID Act is to ensure that the victims got back their money. The judge observed that the state is expected to investigate and prosecute cases on behalf of the victim. But the delays in this case as well as in other cases raise a question on the purpose for which these prosecutions have been made. The cases are pending from the FIR stage itself and it is not known as to when the final report would be filed and whether the victim would reap any benefit. "The govt has to evolve a mechanism to ensure that the grievances of the victims are addressed and the object of the Act is achieved. This court hopes and trusts that the govt would address the issue, in the right spirit," the judge observed. The judge directed that the investigation agency conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible.
Time of India
20-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Mere filing of FIR in financial fraud cases not sufficient: HC
1 2 Madurai: Mere registration of an FIR in financial fraud cases would not serve any purpose since the object of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act, 1997, is to ensure that the victims got back their money, Madras high court has observed. The court was hearing the petition filed by Muthukumaran seeking a direction to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) to attach the properties belonging to the Neomax company, which was involved in a financial fraud by collecting money from various people. Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the TNPID Act was enacted to regulate financial establishments that were exploiting depositors by promising high returns and subsequently defaulting on repayments, leading to widespread public distress. The judge observed that officials of the EOW are under the impression that they are supposed to act/prosecute only after a case is reported. They have to understand that they are also liable to prevent such offences. If any company is offering interest above the rate of interest prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, it is the duty of the EOW to ascertain from the company whether they have any registration or authority to collect the deposits and whether they have the means to give such higher returns. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gil Ramírez Dávalos: Descubre cómo Amazon CFD puede ayudarte a invertir como un pro Empezar ahora Subscríbete Undo Neither the govt nor the police are viewing this aspect, and people like the petitioners are lured by such companies. The judge observed that data, which is available as provided by the EOW, discloses that not even 10% of the amount has been disbursed to the victims. The govt has a moral responsibility to ensure that the victims got back their money. Hence, the judge directed the EOW to look into the allegations by the petitioner and take appropriate action. This apart, S Srisarankumar, who is the treasurer of the Theni District Neomax Investors' Protection Association, moved court seeking a direction to cancel the bail granted to the accused in the Neomax financial fraud case . However, justice Pugalendhi observed that on mere apprehension alone, the court is not inclined to entertain the petition, the judge observed and dismissed the petition.
