SEBI has started seizing assets of property firm PACL
Q: SEBI said in a statement it has attached all bank and demat accounts and mutual fund folios of the company and its promoters and directors with immediate effect
Ye to hona hi tha...........In spite of the directions, PACL has not taken any steps to refund money to the investors. So, the defaulters are likely to conceal of the whole of or any part of movable assets, namely money in banks, securities in demat accounts, mutual fund investments, etc., which are liable to be attached in the activities.
Hmm....... the storing of funds by PACL marked in1997 by SEBI and had issued letters to the company asking it to follow with its rules on collective investment schemes. PACL challenged these letters before the Rajasthan High Court which held that PACL's schemes were not collective investment schemes. Sebi appealed to the Supreme Court which directed the regulator to investigate the matter and take appropriate action.
Before taking action SEBI ordered PACL in August last year to return money to investors and informed as well that company was running an illegal investment scheme that promised depositors returns on investment in agriculture land. But company took it lightly and the result is in front of you.
@Mritunjoy, But the company was arguing that it was selling land to customers and not investment schemes, and thus it was not subject to SEBI' regulations.
As per the latest information, the markets regulator on Monday linked the assets of PACL and its 9 promoters and directors for not refunding over Rs 55000 crore due to investors in connection with illegal mobilization of funds from investors. This could turn out to be the highest ever penalty levied by the regulator on an entity.
Right David, They have sealed all bank and demat accounts and mutual fund folios of the company and its promoters and directors with immediate effect.
Last year in August, the regulator had ordered the company to return money to investors which it had raised from around 5 crore investors. The company had appealed to the Securities and Appellate Tribunal which upheld Sebi's order this year.