Latest news with #TNPIDAct
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.
New Indian Express
26-05-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Amend TNPID Act, allow IOs attach properties in financial fraud cases: Madras High Court
MADURAI: Observing that District Revenue Officers (DROs), who are authorised to file attachment applications, are overburdened resulting in delay in attaching and selling properties of accused persons in financial fraud cases, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has directed the state government to take steps to amend the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act, 1997, delegating the power to investigating officers. Justice B Pugalendhi gave the direction while hearing a batch of petitions filed by some of the victims in a case registered by Economic Offences Wing, Madurai, against Apsal India Pvt Ltd and its sister concerns, which allegedly lured depositors promising high returns but cheated them. The petitioners alleged delay in the investigation and sought to speed up the same or transfer the probe to some other agency. The judge pointed out that in cases of the above nature, if the government is satisfied that a financial establishment is not likely to return the deposits, the designated officers under TNPID Act, namely the DROs, can pass an interim order of attachment attaching the money or other properties of such financial establishments and later file an application before the Special Court within 30 days to make the attachment order absolute. They can also seek a direction to sell the attached properties through public auction so that the amount could be returned to the victims. However, since DROs are already overburdened with other works, there is a delay in filing attachment applications, the judge noted and gave the above direction to enable the investigating officers to file the applications directly. Justice Pugalendhi further recalled that in 2020, the court had appointed a committee under a retired HC judge to ensure the deposits are returned to the victims. But the chairman of the committee recused himself from the post in 2023 citing non-cooperation by the company. While explaining the delay in investigation, the investigation officer (IO) contended that based on the court's direction, EOW had been only assisting the committee all these years and after the chairperson's recusal, they have sought a clarification from the court on further course of action. Rejecting this as a lame excuse, Justice Pugalendhi observed that the appointment of committee did not preclude the IO from investigating the case. Since the accused persons had obtained bail and anticipatory bail by undertaking to co-operate with the committee and later failed to do so, the judge advised the IO to move necessary applications to cancel their bail. Further noting that the case has been pending since 2017, the judge directed the IO to expedite the probe and file final report, preferably within six months.
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Amend TNPID Act for quicker attachment of assets: HC
Madurai: Taking into account the delay in attaching properties of accused people in financial fraud cases, observed that the govt should take steps to amend the relevant provisions under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (TNPID) Act, 1997. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The amendment would enable the investigating officer to file necessary applications directly before the special courts and ensure that properties identified by them are attached at the earliest and appropriated. Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the object of TNPID is to ensure that victims get back their money. Under the existing provisions of the Act, after an interim attachment by the govt, an application has to be filed before the concerned trial court to make it absolute, thereby causing inordinate delay. The judge said the district revenue officer (DRO), who is special officer under the Act, has to file necessary applications before the TNPID court to sell the properties. But, being burdened with other tasks, DROs are not paying any attention to their duty under provisions of TNPID Act, thereby resulting in inordinate delay in filing applications. "Considering the subsequent development of the enactments in the BNS, the govt shall take the initiative to amend the relevant provisions under the TNPID Act, enabling the investigating officer to file necessary applications directly before the special courts and to ensure that the properties identified by them are attached at the earliest and appropriated," the judge observed. The court was hearing the petition filed by S Athista Raj, seeking a direction to the Madurai EOW officials to complete the investigation in the case registered in 2017 and file the final report before the concerned court. Another petition was filed by V Ravichandran, seeking to transfer the case registered by EOW to any other investigating agency. The case of the prosecution is that the company named APSAL India Ltd., and other sister concerns, collected deposits from a large number of people to fund its business operations. The company assured that it would either return the matured amount with huge interest or allot a house site to the depositors. However, they cheated the depositors. Therefore, the case was registered by the Madurai EOW officials in 2017. The judge directed the Madurai EOW officials to conclude the investigation in the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.
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.
