0

The Persistent Challenge of Investment and Stock Market Frauds in India.

Articles , , , , , , ,

Abstract:

This article delves into the landscape of financial frauds in India, examining major frauds, regulatory responses, and the underlying factors that contribute to their persistence. As the country moves forward, the lessons learned from past frauds must inform stronger, more effective strategies to prevent future ones, ensuring that India’s financial markets can fulfil their potential as engines of economic growth and prosperity for all.

 

Introduction

India’s journey towards becoming a global economic powerhouse has been marked by several strides in its financial markets. However, this growth has been periodically stained by a series of investment and stock market frauds that have shaken investor confidence and exposed systemic vulnerabilities.

Since the liberalization of India’s economy in the early 1990s, the country’s financial markets have experienced rapid growth and transformation. However, this period has also witnessed a parallel evolution of financial frauds. From the infamous Harshad Mehta fraud in 1992 to more recent cases like the Saradha Group financial scandal in 2013, these frauds have consistently exploited regulatory loopholes, technological advancements, and investor naivety.

The future of India’s economic growth and its position in the global financial landscape depends significantly on its ability to tackle these persistent frauds and build a robust, fraud-resistant financial ecosystem.

Major Scams and Their Impact:

  1. Harshad Mehta Scam (1992)

Often referred to as “The Big Bull,” Harshad Mehta orchestrated one of India’s largest financial frauds, estimated at 4,000 crore rupees. Mehta exploited the banking system’s weaknesses, using inter-bank transactions to funnel money into the stock market. This scam not only led to a market crash but also exposed significant vulnerabilities in India’s financial system.

  1. CRB Scam (1996)

Chain Roop Bhansali, through his CRB Capital Markets, defrauded investors of approximately 1,200 crore rupees. Bhansali raised funds through various financial instruments and channelled them into the stock market for personal gains. This scam highlighted the risks associated with unregulated non-banking financial companies (NBFCs).

  1. Ketan Parekh Scam (2001)

Following in Mehta’s footsteps, Ketan Parekh manipulated stock prices through circular trading and risky borrowing, causing losses estimated at 800 crore rupees. The scam involved the infamous “K-10” stocks and revealed the dangers of excessive speculation and market manipulation.

  1. Satyam Scam (2009)

Often called “India’s Enron,” the Satyam scandal involved the falsification of accounts to inflate profits and assets, amounting to 14,162 crore rupees. This corporate fraud shook investor confidence in Indian companies and led to significant reforms in corporate governance.

  1. Sahara Housing Bonds (2010)

The Sahara Group raised an estimated 24,029 crore rupees through illegal bond issuances to millions of small investors. This case pointed out the challenges in regulating para-banking activities and protecting small investors.

  1. Speak Asia Scam (2012)

This online survey scam defrauded investors of approximately 2,200 crore rupees. It exemplified how technology could be misused to create sophisticated Ponzi schemes targeting a wide range of investors.

  1. Saradha Scam (2013)

The collapse of the Saradha Group’s Ponzi schemes led to losses estimated at 10,000 crore rupees. This scam exposed the vulnerabilities of small investors in less regulated financial products and the political nexus in financial frauds.

  1. NSEL Scam (2013)

The National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL) scam, involving fake commodity contracts, resulted in losses of about 5,600 crore rupees. It revealed the risks in commodity trading and the need for better oversight of exchanges.

Regulatory Framework and Responses:

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), established in 1992, has been at the forefront of regulating the Indian securities market. Over the years, SEBI has introduced various measures to combat fraud. SEBI has strengthened its market surveillance capabilities, using advanced technologies to detect unusual trading patterns and potential market manipulation. Companies are now required to provide more comprehensive and timely disclosures, enhancing transparency in the market.

SEBI has tightened rules against insider trading, imposing severe penalties on violators. The regulator has refined the takeover code to ensure compliance and fair practices in corporate acquisitions and protect minority shareholders. SEBI has launched various initiatives to improve financial literacy among investors.

Despite these efforts, challenges persist. The regulatory framework often struggles to keep pace with evolving fraud techniques. Moreover, the coordination between different regulatory bodies like SEBI, RBI, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs sometimes needs more efficiency, creating regulatory gaps that can be exploited.

Factors Contributing to Persistent Frauds:

According to surveys cited in the article, over 70% of Indians perform poorly on financial literacy measures. This widespread lack of financial awareness creates a vulnerable environment where many investors are susceptible to fraudulent schemes and manipulative practices through various platforms like social media and other applications. With a solid understanding of economic concepts, risk management, and investment strategies, individuals may fall prey to promises of unrealistic returns or become involved in schemes they do not fully comprehend.

The regulatory framework in India faces several obstacles that hinder its effectiveness in protecting investors and maintaining market integrity. Corruption, bureaucratic hurdles, and political interference often impede the smooth functioning of regulatory bodies and enforcement agencies. These issues can lead to delayed action against fraudulent activities, inconsistent application of rules, and, in some cases, the exploitation of the system by well-connected individuals or entities. Additionally, the overburdened judicial system in India frequently results in prolonged delays in resolving financial fraud cases. This sluggish legal process can sometimes allow perpetrators to evade justice or continue their illicit activities while cases remain pending.

The technological advancements have brought both benefits and challenges to India’s financial markets. While technology has enhanced market efficiency and accessibility, it has also opened up new avenues for fraud. Cybercrime, algorithm-based market manipulation, and sophisticated online frauds are emerging threats that regulators often struggle to address effectively. The rapid pace of technological innovation frequently needs to improve the ability of regulatory bodies to develop and implement appropriate oversight mechanisms, leaving gaps that fraudsters can exploit.

Corporate governance remains a critical area of concern in the Indian business landscape. Despite improvements in recent years, many Indian companies still lack robust corporate governance structures. This deficiency makes them more susceptible to internal fraud, mismanagement, and manipulation of financial statements. Weak governance practices can lead to a lack of transparency, inadequate risk management, and insufficient protection of minority shareholders’ interests, all of which contribute to an environment where financial misconduct can thrive.

Fraudsters often exploit gaps between different regulatory jurisdictions or find loopholes in existing regulations to conduct their activities. The overlap of responsibilities between various regulatory bodies, such as the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and other sector-specific regulators, can sometimes lead to coordination issues and regulatory arbitrage. This fragmented regulatory landscape can create opportunities for sophisticated fraudsters to operate in grey areas or exploit inconsistencies in enforcement.

Impact on Investors and Market Integrity:

The recurring nature of these frauds has impacted the investor sentiment and market integrity. Repeated frauds have made many small investors wary of the stock market, potentially hampering the growth of retail participation in the financial markets. These frauds have resulted in significant economic losses, not just for individual investors but for the economy as a whole. The frequency of these frauds has damaged India’s reputation in global financial markets, potentially deterring foreign investment.

In response to these frauds, regulators have imposed stricter compliance requirements, increasing the cost of doing business for legitimate enterprises. SEBI’s efforts have led to improvements in the institutional framework for securities trading in India. Every actor directly connected with securities trade has been brought under SEBI’s regulatory ambit. A combination of registration, licensing, eligibility conditions, and incentives allows SEBI to rein in non-compliant behaviour that could affect the functioning of the securities market adversely.

While SEBI has made progress in detecting and disposing of instances of non-compliance or infractions, concerns still need to be addressed about the timeliness and scale of penalties awarded. SEBI is said to have had a poor record in carrying its awards through the appellate and judicial systems. The absence of specialized courts with the capacity to deal with matters involving financial markets is cited as a reason for SEBI’s lack of success in securing prosecution against various offenses.

The Way Forward:

As India continues to develop its financial markets, there is an ongoing need to address systemic vulnerabilities, improve regulatory measures, and enhance investor protection. The persistent challenge of investment fraud indicates the importance of continuous improvement in market regulation, corporate governance, and financial literacy to build a trustworthy financial ecosystem in India.

This involves enhancing coordination between various regulatory bodies, such as the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), to identify and close potential loopholes that fraudsters might exploit. Implementing more stringent penalties for financial crimes can serve as a stronger deterrent, discouraging potential wrongdoers. This could include higher fines, longer prison sentences, and restrictions on future participation in financial markets. Additionally, developing early warning systems is crucial to detect and avoid such mishaps. These systems should leverage advanced analytics to detect unusual patterns or suspicious activities in the market, allowing regulators to intervene proactively before significant damage occurs.

A critical defence against investment fraud is an informed public. Integrating a comprehensive financial education into school and college curricula can help create a generation of financially savvy individuals who are less likely to fall prey to fraudulent schemes. This education should cover the basics of personal finance, investment principles, and how to identify potential frauds. Launching widespread public awareness campaigns through various media channels can help reach a broader audience, including those who are no longer in formal education systems. These campaigns should focus on safe investing practices, the importance of due diligence, and how to spot red flags in investment opportunities. Additionally, encouraging responsible financial journalism helps to create an educated population. Media outlets should be incentivized to provide accurate, unbiased financial information and analysis, helping to educate the public and counteract misinformation that might lead to poor investment decisions.

Technology can play a pivotal role in combating investment fraud. Investing in advanced data analytics and artificial intelligence can significantly enhance fraud detection capabilities. These technologies can process vast amounts of data to identify patterns and anomalies that might indicate fraudulent activities, often faster and more accurately than human analysts. Implementing blockchain technology in financial transactions can increase transparency and traceability, making it more difficult for fraudsters to manipulate records or hide illicit activities. Other emerging technologies, such as machine learning algorithms for predictive analysis and natural language processing for monitoring communication channels, can also be employed to strengthen the overall fraud prevention ecosystem.

Strong corporate governance is essential in preventing and detecting fraud within companies. Strengthening the role and independence of company boards and audit committees can provide better oversight and reduce the risk of internal fraud. This could involve stricter criteria for board member selection, mandatory training on fraud detection, and more precise definitions of board responsibilities. Implementing norms more stringent for auditor rotation and independence can help prevent collusion and ensure fresh perspectives in financial audits. Additionally, fostering a culture of whistleblowing by implementing robust protection mechanisms for whistleblowers can encourage employees to report suspicious activities without fear of retaliation, thereby increasing the chances of early fraud detection.

The effectiveness of anti-fraud measures depends on their enforcement. Establishing fast-tracks courts specifically for financial crimes can ensure speedier justice, reducing the backlog of cases and providing timely resolution. This not only serves as a deterrent but also helps in the quicker recovery of defrauded funds. Enhancing the capacity of the judicial system to handle complex financial cases is equally important. This could involve specialized training for judges and prosecutors in economic matters, the use of technology in court proceedings, and the engagement of financial experts to assist in complex cases.

In an increasingly globalized financial world, many frauds have cross-border implications. Strengthening cooperation with international regulators is crucial to tackle such crimes effectively. This could involve information-sharing agreements, joint investigations, and mutual legal assistance treaties. Aligning Indian financial regulations with global best practices can also help in creating a more robust system. This alignment would not only make it easier to cooperate with international partners but also ensure that India’s financial markets meet global standards, potentially attracting more foreign investment while simultaneously making it harder for fraudsters to exploit regulatory differences across jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The persistent challenge of investment and stock market frauds in India reflects deeper systemic issues within the country’s financial ecosystem. While regulatory bodies like SEBI have made significant strides in enhancing market integrity, the evolving nature of economic crimes demands constant vigilance and adaptation.

The stark reality that small investors have “almost zero percent protection” due to systemic issues indicates the urgency of the situation. It is clear that merely tightening regulations is not enough but there needs to be a fundamental shift in how India approaches financial market. An informed investor base not only protects itself better but also serves as an additional layer of market surveillance. However, this needs to be coupled with addressing the root causes of corruption, improving the efficiency of the judicial system, and fostering a culture of ethical business practices.

As India continues its journey towards becoming a global economic powerhouse, ensuring the integrity of its financial markets is essential. This requires a joint effort from regulators, market participants, educational institutions, and the government.

 

Article by Maria Therese Syriac.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Works Cited

  • Dhanaiah, Gangineni, et al. “IMPACT FACTOR 4.173 (ISI) 3.860 (COSMOS) Mehta (1992).” Saradha Group Financial Scandal, vol. XI, no. 2, 2016.
  • Kaushik, Nikhil. “Corporate Governance and Indian Stock Market: A Study with Asymmetric Conditional Volatility Models.” Asian Journal of Management, vol. 9, no. 1, 2018, p. 80, https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00012.4.
  • Rajyalakshmi Kandukuri. “An Analysis of Stockbroking Frauds and Regulatory Action in India.” Journal of Financial Crime, vol. 31, no. 4, 8 June 2023, pp. 1037–1046, https://doi.org/10.1108/jfc-04-2023-0076.
  • Sabarinathan, G. “SEBI’s Regulation of the Indian Securities Market: A Critical Review of the Major Developments.” Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, vol. 35, no. 4, Oct. 2010, pp. 13–26, https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920100402.
  • Sharma, Nirmal, et al. “History of Scams, Corruptions, and Low Financial Literacy in Indian Stock, Capital, and Money Markets.” The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology -170, vol. 21, no. 1, 2020.
  • Van Driel, Hugo. “Financial Fraud, Scandals, and Regulation: A Conceptual Framework and Literature Review.” Business History, vol. 61, no. 8, 5 Oct. 2018, pp. 1259–1299, https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2018.1519026.
  • Zhang, Yun, et al. “Vulnerability and Fraud: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, 28 Nov. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01445-5.
  • https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/personal-finance/financial-scams-in-india/

0

Nomination does not imply the absolute rights over the deceased persons property: Supreme Court

Blog, blog , , , , ,

 

The case of Shakti Yezdani vs Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar (Civil Appeal No. 7107 of 2017) is that the appellants in this case, who are the legitimate heirs of Jayant Shivram Salgaonkar, contested a lawsuit that respondent no. 1 had filed to administer the deceased’s assets, which included investments in mutual funds and fixed deposits (FDs). The deceased had nominated people for his Fixed Deposits and Mutual Funds.

A legal heir filed a suit in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, requesting a declaration allowing the testator’s properties to be managed under court supervision. The nominees responded by claiming that they were automatically entitled to the Securities by virtue of their nomination.  The arguments put forth by the nominees were rejected by a single judge of the High Court. The judge pointed out that neither the Companies Act nor the Depositories Act create a third mode of succession, meaning that a nominee is not entitled to the Securities to the exclusion of the legal heirs. In the appeal process, the Single Judge’s ruling was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved by this they preferred appeal in the supreme court.

The court held that the vesting of securities in favor of the nominee stipulated by the Companies Act and Depositories Act serves a limited purpose, namely, to ensure that there is no confusion regarding the legal formalities that must be completed upon the death of the holder, and, by extension, to protect the subject matter of nomination from any protracted litigation until the deceased holder’s legal representatives are able to take appropriate steps. The introduction of the nomination facility under the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1999 was solely to boost the investment climate and simplify the time-consuming process of obtaining various letters of succession from various authorities following the death of a shareholder.

It stated that there is a complex layer of commercial considerations that must be considered when dealing with company nomination issues or until legal heirs can sufficiently establish their right of succession to the company. As a result, providing a discharge to the entity once the nominee is involved differs significantly from granting nominees ownership of securities rather than legal heirs. The nomination process thus does not supersede the succession laws. Simply put, the Companies Act of 1956 and the Depositories Act of 1996 do not aim or intend to provide a third mode of succession. And it is clear that the Companies Act isn’t dealing with the law of succession.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement