SEBI : SAHARA ISSUE MISCHIEVIOUS STATEMENT BY SEBI LAWYER Mr.DATTAR

We object to misleading statements made by Sebi lawyer, Mr. Arvind Dattar in public and media. His statement in media tends to mislead by creating an impression as if 'Saharasri' Subrata Roy Sahara wanted to go abroad before incarceration.  The fact however is that, 'Saharasri' was abroad and immediately returned to the country on being summoned. In November, 2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had restrained ‘Saharasri’ and other directors from leaving the country without permission. It is very important to state that subsequently Saharasri was granted permission by Hon’ble Supreme Court to travel abroad for two weeks, yet he did not go abroad. It is therefore clear that the statement given by SEBI’s senior lawyer Mr. Dattar is absolutely incorrect.

In 2012 Sahara has repaid to 95% of its Investors.  Nobody believed that.

But now Sebi in their 4th all India Advertisement through around 144 publications has clearly said that this is the last chance esteemed Investors to lodge their claims with SEBI seeking refund.

For last 43 Months uptil, now demand of repayment to public is only Rs.52.80 crores whereas Sebi already has Sahara's around Rs.13700 crores (with interest earned) available with them and till now Sebi has refunded to public only Rs.51.84 crores. Above all we have to pay Rs.5300 crores (including B.G. of Rs.5000 crores) more to get the bail of chairman and two directors. Also Sebi is holding land asset worth around Rs.40000 crores.

So Sahara is giving security of Rs.59000 crores for only around 104 crores repayment to public to be done by Sebi ever. Sebi do not agree worth of land asset as Rs.40000 crores, They say it is Rs.20000 crores. Even then it is 39000 crores security against Rs.104 crores requirement for repayment to public.

The fact also remains, that Sahara did everything as per law prevailing at that time. Sahara did this OFCD business with written permission of 3 Registrar of Companies under Ministry of Corporate Affairs. For continuously 7-8 years registrar of companies took our balance sheets etc, received the submission of prospectus, did dozens of inspections and investigations, we filed our return every year with registrar of companies etc.

Then why the case is against Sahara by Sebi. Sebi should lodge case against 3 registrar of companies, Ministry of Corporate affairs.




Advocate On Record Gautam Awasthi
Supreme Court

Column: Why is Sebi finding it difficult to track Sahara investors?

Arun Kejriwal

The imbroglio involving the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and Subrata Roy-led Sahara Group is not a simple case of money being taken and not returned to investors; neither is it a shady deal like the Saradha scam.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had overseen the refund of over Rs 22,000 crore to about 40 million Sahara investors by a handpicked committee a few years ago. Neither the committee faced the problem of identifying investors nor it doubted their existence.

Certainly, the apex bank has greater knowledge of investors, and a refund of this amount of money to such a large base of investors was a mammoth task. When RBI could do it, why is Sebi finding issues with the same set of investors as claimed by Sahara.

One must understand that the turf over which Sahara operates is with people who are unbankable. Returns offered by Sahara are in sync with the prevailing market rates and are not, therefore, unsustainable or in any way leading to instability.

The Sahara scheme is not a pyramid scheme and does not offer returns which can only be shown on paper. The rates vary in the range of 8-10 per cent, which is the current bank rate in the country.

Sebi in its wisdom says that since majority of the 20,000-odd people to whom it sent mails about their deposits did not respond, they are bogus or non-existent. The kind of questionnaire sent by the market regulator is beyond the realm of a well-read person and needs a high degree of expertise to be filled in and returned.

Secondly, when a person is asked to contact the Sebi headquarters in Mumbai for a refund of Rs 8,000, he/she feels it is not worth it. Thirdly, if the investor has already been refunded by Sahara, why should he claim a bogus or double refund? The most interesting aspect of the episode is that the same 20,000-odd investors from whom Sebi did not receive reply, Sahara got KYC and refund discharge vouchers in the standard prescribed and accepted form from over 16,000 people.

RBI refunded about Rs 22,000 crore is not acceptable to Sebi. The regulator is not willing to work with Sahara.

Sebi is not able to locate investors and yet it wants more money. Why and for what is something that Sebi needs to answer? In the Saradha case, which rocked West Bengal last year, thousands of investors came out to protest and there were a few cases of suicides as well.

Why do not we see similar protests in the Sahara case if there are millions of unpaid investors as claimed by Sebi? I believe in the current situation it makes sense for Sebi to seek help of bodies concerned in reaching out to the investors and seeing that the money due is refunded at the earliest.

The Supreme Court has also said that if Sahara's help is taken in doing so, there is no reason why the investors cannot be found and their rightful money be repaid. Like I said in the beginning, the case of Sebi versus Sahara is not one of investor protection but something which goes beyond that.