Sebi bars 14 entities for illegal money pooling activities

Regulator Sebi has barred Falcon Infra Projects, Jeevan Suraksha Real Estate and 12 individuals from the securities market as the two companies illegally raised funds from the public.
Apart from the two firms, the watchdog has directed nine individuals to refund money to the investors along with annual interest.
Falcon Infra Projects Ltd (FIPL) had raised around Rs 24.61 lakh through issuance of redeemable preference shares (RPS) to 349 investors during 2009-10. In the case of Jeevan Suraksha, the company had garnered Rs 10 lakh by allotting shares to 65 investors during 2006-07, as per two separate orders issued by Sebi on Wednesday.

The action against the companies and the individuals concerned came after it was found that the firms did not comply with public issue norms in raising the funds.
According to an order, FIPL as well as its four present and former directors -- Abdul Alim, Tanjuara Begum, Sonia Parvin Alim and Babar Ali -- have been directed to repay the money collected to the investors. The amount has to be refunded along with an annual interest of 15 per cent.
In this case, the watchdog has also barred the five entities from the securities market for four years from the date of completion of refund.

With regard to Jeevan Suraksha, the company and its four former directors -- Champa Biswas, Sangita Das, Arju Acharjee and Dipamoni Acharjee -- have been asked to repay the amount with yearly interest of 15 per cent. A similar direction has been issued to the firm's present director Chandan Das.
Further, Jeevan Suraksha, the former directors, three present directors -- Chandan Das, Ashok Chakraborty and Uttam Acharjee -- and promoter Pankaj Biswas have been restrained from dealing in the securities market at least for four years, as per another order.
Since securities were issued to more than 50 people, both companies were required to comply with public issue norms, including their compulsory listing on a recognised stock exchange and filing prospectus under the Companies Act. However, the two firms failed to meet these requirements, among others.