Skip to main content

StockGuru : The 500 crore scam or "How a sucker is born every minute".


The scam perpetrated by multi-level marketing (MLM) firm Stock Guru India (SGI)  is one more wake up call, for it exposes innumerable holes in our system of checks and balances. - such as it is.

Consider this: The Ulhas-Raksha couple used about five identities, managed to get documents such as PAN cards and driving licences in each name, opened 94 accounts in 20 different banks with 13 different names, bought 12 properties and also owned 12 luxury vehicles, according to media reports.

All these ideally should have gone through elaborate checks by so called regulators. Or are they only for the commoners?

At least, so it seems. Otherwise, how could Ulhas Prabhakar Khaire and Raksha J Urs manage to skirt all the rules and get multiple PAN cards, driving licences and passports?


Other numbers related to the scam are also mindboggling—only in Delhi about 14,000 complaints against the company and more than 2 lakh investors duped with amount ballooning to Rs. 1000 crore.

What is more surprising is the time it took for the authorities to track down the scamsters.

According to media reports, after receiving investor complaints it took more than one year for the authorities to arrest the couple, who reportedly were roaming around with bouncers in Dwarka.

Moreover, they had a highly sophisticated scheme—they conducted conferences, distributed brochures at five-star hotels and even had multiple agents across the country.

All these, under the nose of the highly alert watchdogs like Sebi and others. More surprisingly, there were suspicions raised about the company’s functions and schemes.

A report published in MoneyLife magazine in December 2010 had raised important questions about the functioning of the dubious firm.

How can Stock Guru promise 120 percent return from investing in stocks “even as leading investors like Rakesh Jhunjhunwala found it very hard to earn even 20 percent return”, it had asked.

According to the report, Stock Guru advised investors to buy shares at a low price and sell them at a higher price.

Reportedly, the couple has been arrested and investigation into scam is spreading. The Enforcement Directorate and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office are also likely join the probe. The role of some SEBI officials will also be looked into for ignoring repeated warning. An Economic Offences Wing team from Mumbai will also visit Delhi to gather more information

The company was not registered with either RBI or Sebi, both key regulators that oversee the financial sector. That highlights a bigger malaise in the system.

According to the MoneyLife report there are many MLM companies that operate without even a trading licence from the Sebi and RBI. Another issue that the scam brings into focus is lack of regulation of investment advisory firms in India.

Sebi had in 2007 come out with a draft regulation, which was revised twice later. In effect, the guidelines remain just that—the draft. The regulator has not yet been able to arrive at a consensus to finalise the guidelines.

Investors greed coupled with lack of regulations and even lackadaisical enforcement will keep such scams alive. 

It is almost the same story being repeated over and over. The company promised mouth-watering returns—Rs 22,000 on an investment of Rs 10,000 in one year. It is clear people made a beeline for the company’s schemes blindly. They did not even check the credentials of the claims Stock Guru made. According to the MoneyLife report, while Stock Guru promised a demat account with Sharekhan, the brokerage denied any such deal with it. It is to be presumed that no investor ever tried to check the veracity of this claim because of the lure of making a quick buck. 

Our country has this typical approach of being tough with the common man and if you can make yourself big enough, get the right connections, you are free. Of course we are stating the obvious here. But while it is easy  to blame the 'authorities', we also need to take a look at ourselves and ask considering that all the other scams in the past (some very recent), how different a modus-operandi could this company have offered to perpetrate this scam. Our belief is - not much. As P.T. Burnum said, "A sucker is born every minute".


Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even