Sen, chairman and managing director of Saradha Group, said he owned 160 companies. About 15 operated as real firms, Sen’s lawyer Samir Das says.
Unlawful deposit companies proliferate in India. Saradha took in at least $200 million based on preliminary figures, Sinha says. Actual numbers may be bigger, he says. Such firms have raised a total of more than $2 billion, Sinha estimates.
Once again the proponents of the nanny state style look to government to ensure people can trust those organizations they use as banks. As we all know, people don’t need a nanny state to solve their problems. People should just do their own research and examine the banking enterprise to see how reliable they are, and whether they are using questionable methods similar to a ponzi scheme.
It is no surprise the nanny state can’t keep up with all the fraudsters. People should just watch out themselves and not seek protection from the nanny state.
The Saradha fiasco sparked an overhaul of SEBI’s powers. The regulator has shut 15 companies and barred the owners from the capital markets. It’s investigating 20 more, Sinha says.
That’s a fraction of India’s fraudulent collection businesses, says Prithvi Haldea, chairman of researcher Prime Database in New Delhi.
“There are countless scams currently in operation in various sizes, shapes and forms,” he says. “Saradha led to a new law and that’s a good thing, but is it geared toward conquering all scams? Certainly not.”
In India, several regulators supervise banks and financial companies — creating gaps that scammers exploit. SEBI monitors so-called collective investment schemes, known as CISs, which typically deal with money pooled from customers.
Those of us against the nanny state are not surprised the government fails to protect people from fraudsters. The whole idea that the nanny state should be treating us like kids that need protection is flawed. People would be just fine if the state didn’t try to protect them.