Statutory Short Form Of General Power Of Attorney Attached Is A Of: Fill & Download for Free

Short answer: No.Long answer. It will depend on the jurisdiction and the specific statutory requirements for a valid Power of Attorney (PoA). In most states, the PoA is complete when the party creating the document signs before a Notary Public for the jurisdiction.Remember, a person can decline to accept their role under the PoA. There is a general presumption that the parties have talked about the appointment, and if not then the agent (appointee) should make an effort to reach out to the person making the PoA. Even if you do not know of the appointment at the time it is made, one can resign as an agent under the PoA. Simply draft a formal letter of resignation. Include the date the power of attorney was signed, the full names of the agent and principal, a statement that indicates you're resigning, and the last day you will act as an agent. Sign the letter in front of a Notary and have the proper seal attached. Deliver the resignation to the principal (person who created the PoA).Most states have statutorily provided forms that provide a document for you to use. To find such documents search “[your state] power of attorney statutory form.” A general form is available and in some states, more specific forms are available as well. In those states that may require the designee (agent) to sign the form, there are usually statutory forms available as well.Here is the link to the Colorado statutory form, and from it you can see that no space is provided for the agent to sign. This form is similar to the forms used in a majority of states.https://powerofattorney.wiki/wp-content/uploads/Colorado-Statutory-Form-Power-Of-Attorney.pdf

Now, before starting, it's very worth noting that the UK and indeed the two nations of The British Isles (UK and Republic of Ireland) can be riddled with idiosyncrasies and apparent contradictions, not least in the terms used to describe and categorise.I want to roll off another answer stating that England and Scotland were and are countries.The confusion which can come from the terms used - countries, regions, nations - ought to be cleared up for everyone, because really this part is quite simple and really straightforward when you know what's going on. I'll deal with this then, which isn't what the question is asking centrally, before returning to deal with that.The United Kingdom is a country in the sense that we normally use the word country, in the sense that USA, France, Italy, Russia, South Africa, Namibia and Australia are countries. That means a single, overall unit nation (or sovereign nation). This meaning of country - again probably the most used meaning of the word country - means the same as the usual use of the word nation.(Unfortunately it's not absolutely straightforward as the word nation itself doesn’t have to mean overall single unit or sovereign nation. But the term nation nearly always does mean that in usage today, so it's a fairly safe term to use to distinguish.)The four constituent parts of the country United Kingdom - England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are countries - also - but it is a completely different word if you like, or the same word with a completely different meaning.The four parts of The UK are regional counties, or, better and less confusing to say regions (it's the very same thing, no difference) and together they make up the one national country - again the more usual use of the term country, to mean nation.In the case of the UK as a whole, I'd say it's better to say nation here rather than country, as its four constituent regions are at times called countries and not everyone is aware that this always means just regional country or region.What you need to know about the term country is that it can mean absolutely anything. It can mean any administrative area of land of any kind, or even just any piece of land whatsoever - non-administrative - which the speaker has decided to refer to as a country.Therefore, New York State is a country (it is a regional country) but also Greater New York is a country if someone is talking of it as a country (it would be a greater urban area country). France is a country (national country) but Provence is also a country (regional country) and any section of land around the French Atlantic coast can be a country if a speaker refers to it as such (for example, an unofficial regional or geographical area country).Basically, country means a piece of land of any description or size whatsoever, and that can include a borough of a town if someone wants to say “that is my country”! Really. While the word’s most popular use is to describe sovereign nations such as Spain, Indonesia or Colombia, it is also fairly commonly used at times in these different ways for example to describe regions of those national countries.I hope this isn't full of overkill, but so many people get confused about this in The UK. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England are regions (regional countries) of the nation (national country) United Kingdom.The same terms could be applied correctly and aptly anywhere in the world, for example the 50 States of the USA are regional countries of the one national country USA. It's the same..The basic meaning of Devolution in The United Kingdom (and generally, usually - for anywhere).In the decades immediately proceeding 1998, there was no devolution in The UK.There had been devolution in the nation decades before in the past, but not for quite a long time. All government for throughout the UK in these decades before 1998 was therefore centralised in the national capital London.Devolution simply means the “regionalisation” (to coin a phrase) of government, crucially to extents only and never fully, away from central government. For example we saw amidst major international news a couple of years ago in Catalonia in Spain something of the existing devolution there of the Catalan regional parliament as an example in Spain, and we saw exactly the limit of its powers.When devolution happens, centralised national government always remains in place at the same time, but there has been an agreed transfer of some degree of decision-making (or power)to a region or regions, while the centralised government also retains other elements of decision making or power.(We saw that, in the national Spanish Law which allows the Catalan regional, devolved Parliament to exist and function, this law did not give Catalonia the power to arrange its own referendums - on identity and nationality issues at least. So the Catalan Parliament’s attempt was illegal in law and dismissed. Any referendum which would be legally agreed and allowed, in short would have to be decided, arranged and carried out by the central, national Spanish government, not the Catalan devolved administration. This is absolutely typical of how devolved powers into regions works throughout the world, when found - and devolution of varying proportions is common in countries all over the world.)What's important is that the centralised or main, national government and Parliament sanctions, allows, grants or offers decision-making to be devolved in part to the region or regions (and makes the highest national law in its own domain to do so). Therefore the devolution happens only under the highest national laws. So, for example in The UK, there could be no devolution at all unless the central national government and Parliament in Westminster, London allowed it and legislated nationwide Statutes to enable devolution.Another important element of that is the power of these “enabling Statutes” are always ongoing. So, while the statute granting devolution may have been written and enacted originally in 1998, the power or the statute to allow devolution of continue is still there as long as devolution continues. So if there is still devolution in Scotland for example in the year 2020, it is only possible as reliant upon the national Wesminster statue made around 20 years earlier and still applying every day since. Devolution anywhere in The UK could not keep going within the nation if the central Parliamentary national Statutes were withdrawn or repealed to take away permission for regional government.So that means that there might be some differing of opinions over the perception of “power” being devolved. Decision-making ability, yes, has been devolved to the regions. In an everyday sense, probably that is correctly defined as power also - the basic power to make those decisions. But it only exists because of the overriding and constitutionally revocable grant given from and by the ongoing, prevailing power which lies in the centralised, national government and Parliament.Westminster will always retain the power to be able to change or take away devolved government tomorrow if it votes that way in any relevant bill. The Constitutional Law of The UK necessitates that this truth is a constant which doesn't and can't change. All laws in the UK can only be made in the first place, and can only continue to be legal and functioning, if they comply fully with the fundamental Constitutional Law of the nation.It's worth noting (especially because of some quite severe misinformation going around about Brexit and Northern Ireland) that some areas of British law can never be devolved to regions. The constitution prevents it. These are, centrally, called The Powers of The State, and are for example full control over issues such as all national borders, immigration, customs, foreign trade arrangements, membership of international groups such as The European Union, the ability to make any decisions over aligning domestic policies or laws with a foreign nation or international group.Those issues stated can never be devolved and therefore have not been devolved even in any fraction whatsoever to Scoltand, Wales or Northern Ireland.(Nor to England for that matter - England is also just another region in The UK of the four regions. It doesn't have its own separate, regional Parliament. The main reason for this is that, as England is by far the biggest British region with by far the most central government MPs in the national Westminster Parliament, many more than the other three regions' MPs put together, the national British government itself is considered as predominantly Anglo-centric anyway, or very much more focussed on the opinions of the English MPs than the three outlying regions.)Just quickly to tie up the brief reference I made to NI and Brexit, people including broadsheet journalists and some current and past politicians themselves have been falsely claiming that the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland binds the UK against creating a “hard” (meaning checked or partially checked) British land border between Northern Ireland and it's neighbouring nation Republic of Ireland.It's not true. Again, all border issues are 100% constitutionally part of the Powers of the State, and so have never been and could never be devolved, whether to Belfast or Edinburgh or Cardiff. Those powers remain absolutely in the hands of Westminster.This is so even despite what the Prime Minister herself may say, and by now this should not be surprising to British people particularly. There is a history of Prime Ministers trying to circumvent the law of the land, particularly Constitutional Law, hoping no-one notices and no-one makes a court challenge. It's not unknown also for the Prime Minister even to direct the Attorney General to give dubious to utterly false legal advice to enable the PM to make the illegal moves intended. Just because there are laws does not mean by any means that what the politicians do or try to do is legal in itself. It's really not an unusual perception at all that British politicians can see themselves, and act as if, above the law. (At least unless or until a court directs them to obey the law.)For example see the case taken by Gina Miller against Theresa May's government as the government tried to leave the EU without the constitutionally necessary Parliamentary vote. The then Attorney General himself Dominic Grieve - who is very against Brexit, very pro-EU, probably very undesiring of Parliament making a binding law to leave the EU - appealed Ms Miller’s case all the way to the Supreme Court, which then ordered the government to submit and have the necessary Parliamentary vote under the law.Legally, under the British constitution, it is impossible to devolve the border issues to Northern Ireland, where it ought to be clear that the Good Friday Agreement never contained any such agreement over national borders. What's more is that the GFA agreement was anyway a pre-devolution agreement, leading to devolution taking place. No powers at all were devolved by (or “to”) the GFA itself, but it allowed devolution to occur later, to Stormont. The subsequent devolution to Stormont, Belfast which occurred never included any Powers of the State such as power or entrenchment in any particular way of national border issues and it would be impossible anyway for that to happen under the British constitution. Just as border powers were not and could never be devolved to Edinburgh or Cardiff, they were never devolved to Belfast either.Legal Jurisdictions in The UK.i) Basic function of legal systems and the meaning of different jurisdictions.Before devolution at the end of the 1990s, things were more straightforward.There was one parliament and no other parliaments or assemblies making legislation - the one national Parliament issuing Statute Law in Westminster.I'm going to talk about Westminster and the laws passed in Parliament before devolution and how it could work with regard to the regions particularly.But first I should describe for those who don't know that the whole of the British law and legal system functions under the dual systems of parliament made law, called Statute, which is the highest form of all and must always be obeyed, and court made law or ‘Common Law'. The British constitution separates the two types of law in the constitutional doctrine called The Separation of Powers, which mandates a few things:that courts (‘the judiciary') cannot intervene in Parliament's statue laws and are inferior to statute lawBut that courts do make their own form of law which is based upon the interpretation of statute law and also “filling in the gaps” which has been left in the statutes. When a court makes a decision on anything, the key areas of its decision then become law themselves for the time after the decision. Anything which is law means that it “binds”, and where a Parliamentary statute binds everything, court made law only binds courts of the same standing or lower. So a law made from a case heard in a High Court is binding law upon all other High Courts and lower courts, but it does not bind higher courts such as the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal binds all future cases on the same issue in the Court of Appeal itself and all lower courts, but not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court binds all courts (but cannot bind itself, as that would prevent any future hearings taking place on the same issue).While the purpose of the courts is to rule on particular instances in which Statute Law is relevant and then make new law on a case-by-case basis which interprets statutes generally and fills in gaps on many details, the Separation of Powers also states that the courts can hold the government itself to account on laws. So, while the government makes the highest laws, statute laws, the SoP doctrine makes sure that the government itself is held to account on that it is keeping those laws which it and prior governments enacted, and also keeping any relevant Common Law which the courts have interpreted or attached to the statutes.The government is bound to accept and honour any decisions made by the judiciary about its acts. In this way the Separation of Powers not only ensures that the courts cannot make higher law than Parliament, but also ensure that Parliament and ministers and the government are held to account by the courts, held to any existing, enduring laws of any type.Before devolution, there were 3 legal jurisdictions in The UK, while perhaps functioning more as 2 systems. There was The Law of England and Wales, Scots Law and The Law of Northern Ireland. What these jurisdictions definitively referred to was the law of the courts. This was so as most Statute Law (but not all, see the next section, ii) was nationwide applying Statute Law. So, while generally all four of the regions were bound by the same, nationwide highest law (with exceptions where regional statues applied) - Statute Law of Westminster - it was really the law of the courts which interpreted and added detail to those laws were separated into three jurisdictions.The meaning of the separate jurisdictions was really about the law of the courts before jurisdiction.Devolution has made things more complex. However, actually the meaning of these 3 official legal jurisdictions in The UK has still not changed officially, while that itself can seem to have a limited relevance today.The different court decisions between the different jurisdictions of England & Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, even on the same statute, could give different meanings to the laws in these three jurisdictions. In essence, the same statute could be made to mean actually different laws in different regions, and that quite commonly happened. It was and is a quite strange thing, bound up with historical issues rather than relevance to the modern times.Before going on, it needs to be said that at least in theory, this is still the way things are in respect of law in the UK, concerning jurisdictions related to the law of the courts.But I also wanted to explain a little more - I said that the 3 systems could function more as 2 legal systems, more or less. This is because the Law of Northern Ireland was said to be bound by the court decisions of the Common Law of the courts of England and Wales. Any decision by a particular court in England and Wales was nearly always taken as binding legal precedent in Northern Ireland for courts of the same or lower standing. The Common Laws systems were distguished officially, but they used the same cases mostly and same statutes more often than not, and functioned the same way. It was possible for decisions of courts of England and Wales to be distinguished by courts in NI for very limited and particular reasons which had to be set out, but it didn't happen much. So, while an official separate legal jurisdiction, Northern Ireland in practice functioned overall as a near identical extension of the legal system of England and Wales.By contrast, Scots Law was and remains very different, with no official crossover of the binding nature of court decisions between Scotland and any other part of The UK. A Scots court could use court made law in another British jurisdiction if it chose, but was and is not legally bound to do so. That's what makes it a fully different jurisdiction.Looking at the official requirements for lawyers to study, train, register and practice, this also shows the difference in jurisdictions back before devolution of the end of The 1990s. If you took a law degree in England or Wales (or the postgraduate diploma), then took the legal practice study course, and trained along with taking the professional skills study at the same time, this qualified you to become a lawyer in England, Wales or Northern Ireland (the latter with very minor additional study and train in taking less than a week usually) - but not Scotland.Regarding NI and England & Wales, the same was true the other way around. Those who took a law degree in Northern Ireland (or Pg Dip) and trained in the NI Institute of Legal Executives were qualified to be lawyers in England and Wales - but again, not Scotland.The law degrees fell into two jurisdictions in practice for becoming a lawyer. To work in Scotland, with Scots Law, you had to have a Scottish law degree. It didn’t transfer to the rest of The UK. To work as a lawyer in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, but had to have a law degree (or Pg Dip) from England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Scots degrees were not acceptable in the rest of the UK and vice versa. Any lawyer wishing to transfer from Scotland to the rest of the UK or vice versa would have to go back and study afresh for the other legal system.ii) Briefly, devolution and what devolution did.Between around two and a half years before the turn of the millenium and one and a half years before the millenium, the three outerlying British regions had their own regional, separate referendums about whether the people did or didn't want their own regional, devolved parliamentary assemblies, making their own legislation in part. (While London would still make other decisions.) The results were that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales each chose devolution.This meant the creation of three new legislating assemblies, Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh for Scotland, Northern Ireland's Local Assembly in Stormont, Belfast for Northern Ireland and The Welsh Assembly in Cardiff for Wales.Under the terms of what remains the highest law nationally, granted by Statutes of the national government in Westminster, these three new regional assemblies now make highest law for each respective region on most usually occurring issues, but not all, and not the reserved issues of The Powers of The State.That means crucially that there are now a lot of differences in the highest law between the four regions, by the law made legislation in the four assemblies - the nationwide Parliament and England's legislator, Westminster, The Scottish Parliament, The Welsh Assembly and Thre Local Assembly of Northern Ireland.It kind of makes the 3 legal jurisdictions seem quite antique and perhaps even more irrelevant. While in Scotland the differences between its legal systems and the legal systems of the three regions of the rest or the UK have become even more pronounced, the differences between those other, individual three regions are also much greater than before. Of course this is because, mostly, there is separate highest law in each of the 4 assemblies of The UK Parliament. But that also entails that there is now a great deal of separate court law in each of the four regions to interpret and “fill in” their own assembly legislations.Each of the four regions have diverged significantly. The biggest change is also between England and Wales. Though officially still in the same legal system, this legal system is now evidently a most strange entity and a kind of living misnomer. The law in Wales is made mostly by the Welsh Assembly and Welsh courts making decisions on those Acts it has passed. But they have no relevance in England. Similarly, the Welsh have opted out from most law passing in Westminster, and so it and the court law made for in the courts of England will not apply in Wales. This tends to seem to make the historic legal jurisdiction of The Law of England and Wales terribly redundant. It seems to live on in some kind of strange, mysterious notion of defiance.iii) Finally, at last, getting around to the question of separate laws for any of the four individual British regions - BEFORE devolution. (What the question asked!!!)I've made it clear that before devolution of the late 1990s, the vast majority of highest law - back then simply and exclusively Westminster Statutes - was nationwide law. It applied in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.So what was the rest - beyond the vast majority?Westminster did have the power to differentiate ‘situations’ in order that certain areas of law could be made separately for one of the three outlying regions, or for the central region, England itself. For that to happen, most typically one of the regional MPs would stand and make a proposal under the ways Westminster functions that a certain issue ought to be distinguished for the people of their own particular region. It happened quite a lot for Northern Ireland actually. (I'll talkabout this practice further. But I should say this regional MP proposed way wasn't the only practice, as at times the government itself would direct a vote on distinguishing certain items for a region or regions from the front bench.)However, whichever way it happened, it was a quite slapdash method of legislating for regions. (However again, it often worked quite well notwithstanding that).It used to happen back then that most regional orientated issues would be timetabled, reserved or had to wait for late in the evening for discussion and voting in Westminster. Usually at this time, there would be really few MPs left in the chamber, but for the interested regional MPs and maybe a few others. In a way, this kind of practice helped regional issues be distinguished more, because most MPs would have left and there would be few to vote against the proposal to distinguish the issue at hand for the particular region.To distinguish in this way required a vote in Parliament supporting distinguishing, which all MPs were eligible to vote upon. But more usually few did vote upon beyond the interested regional MPs themselves.So it was often not too hard to distinguish issues in this way, but nothing was ever guaranteed and it did happen when more MPs (non-regional MPs) were in the chamber that proposals for regional distinguishing were denied. Then it may not have been possible to even know if the proposal to distguish the issue regionally had been denied because those MPs felt strongly about it. Or simply because the MPs happened to be in the House of Commons at the time and just felt like that maybe more power shouldn't be taken from the full cohort of MPs, regardless of the issue.The general picture is that there were issues at times cropping up that were felt strongly by regional MPs to be something which the full cohort of Westminster MPs would never understand the regional impact of. Sometimes the regional MPs were successful in having issues distinguished, sometimes not - the quite slapdash effect.At times it had been stated that it was not quite an actual parliamentary convention for non-regional MPS to refrain from voting at all in many regional distinguishing proposals, but not far from that. However, others disagreed and there were definitely times when if regional MPs thought they could rely on something like a convention in the House of Commons to allow their proposals to distinguish, they were frustrated by non-regional MPs voting against the proposal.(Of course, at the same time, it can easily have been that the non-regional MPs felt very strongly that there were strong reasons why the particular issue should not be distinguished for a particular region, and hence their vote. But then again, maybe not. Maybe they just voted in favour of more general centralised power, rather than looking at the issue and effects upon the region.)When an issue had been distinguished, it could lead to a Westminster Statute being passed just for a particular region - whether England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. There were at times Statutes distinguished for England and Wales together. At times, where an issue had been distinguished for one region, ensuing, limited statutes or statutory instruments on the same issue would be passed for only the remaining regions - for example Scotland, England and Wales, or Northern Ireland, England and Wales. Distinguishing statutes for England alone or England and Wales only was much more rare. Considering England alone, with most issues there wasn't the need to try to distinguish for England, as the great majority of English MPs could get the bill through anyway, for the whole UK.Most statutes back then were nationwide and only a small minority were distinguished for a region or regions fewer than all four.

NSEL case or NSEL scam relates to a payment default at the National Spot Exchange that occurred in 2013. The case is under investigation with the spotlight on the involvement of brokers,defaulters, investors and key decision makers. NSEL was promoted by Financial Technologies India Ltd. The payment default took place when the then commodities market regulator, the Forward Markets Commission (FMC) directed NSEL to stop launching any fresh contracts leading to an abrupt closure of the Exchange in July 2013.BackgroundThree spot exchanges NSEL, NSPOT and National APMC were exempted by the government under Section 27 of FCRA to conduct forward trading in one day contracts. This was done to boost volumes so that their economic viability improved. While Financial Technologies (India) promoted NSEL was granted general exemption on June 5, 2007, NSPOT and National APMC received exemptions under the same provisions on July 23, 2008 and August 11, 2010 respectively. On the flawed recommendations of the FMC, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs ordered NSEL to settle all existing contracts and not launch any fresh contracts, which led to the crisis.Investigations led by Enforcement Directorate (ED) & Economic Offences Wing (EOW) revealed the role of brokers & defaulters in the NSEL case.The brokers mis-sold NSEL products to their clients by assuring them fixed returns. The defaulters hypothecated stocks and produced fake warehouse receipts and siphoned the entire default money.Initially, it was projected that there were 13,000 trading clients affected by the NSEL crisis. The genuineness & entitlement of these 13,000 trading clients is questionable as NSEL & other authorities repeatedly asked its members/brokers to furnish the Know Your Customer (KYC) details of all 13,000 trading clients, but it has not been furnished. In fact, they vehemently opposed it. Even the high power committee of Mumbai High Court also suggested that brokers should furnish this data to NSEL in order to protect interest of genuine claimants. Considering this aspect, SFIO which is also investigating the case, has recently asked brokers & trading clients to provide various information in a specific format which also includes KYC related information.Anjani Sinha, the sacked CEO and the MD of the company, owned up the entire responsibility of the crisis in his first affidavit. However, Anjani Sinha after arrest retracted his earlier affidavit. Subsequently, after his release, Sinha admitted to the contents of his first affidavit in his statement to the Enforcement Directorate.HistoryPursuant to the then Prime Minister’s vision to create a single market across the country for both manufactured and agricultural produce, NSEL (National Spot Exchange Limited) was conceptualized in the year 2004. According to the Economic Surveys of the government done in 2003-2006, 3 consecutive years of survey also recommended setting up a national-level, integrated market for agricultural products, as did the planning commission, which was aware of the benefits of the spot markets. This was followed by the Rangarajan Committee, which too sought a national spot market. Following the invitation from Ministry of Consumer Affairs (MCA), the Multi Commodities Exchange Ltd. (MCX) which was earlier a sister company of NSEL, submitted a project report for establishing a nationwide spot market for commodities. NSEL was set up as a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 18 May 2005 with its registered office in the State of Maharashtra. NSEL was incorporated by MCX and the nominees of FTIL. Subsequently, in view of the regulatory concerns between regulated commodities exchanges holding equity shareholding in spot exchanges, the shareholding of MCX and nominees were transferred and consolidated later in 2005 with FTIL. On 5 June 2007, NSEL was approved as a Spot Exchange by Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL), commenced live trading on October 15, 2008, and was the first commodity spot exchange of the country. Within a few years, as many as six state governments issued licences under the model Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMC) Act to NSEL, because their own APMCs mostly short-changed the poor farmers. NSEL turned out to be a boon for such farmers because they could now sell their produce at competitive rates and make better profits. NSEL also led to transparent spot price discovery leading to the growth of electronic spot markets. The Exchange was also promoted by National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (NAFED). In August 2011, FMC was appointed as the ‘designated agency’ to fill the regulatory vacuum in the commodities market. A series of bizarre actions by the FMC spooked the market and as a result NSEL had to suspend the trading of all contracts on July 31, 2013.EOW Mumbai police actionThe EOW (Economic Offences Wing) of Mumbai police is presently investigating this crisis and the Mumbai police has conducted various raids. On 9 October 2013, Amit Mukherjee, the Assistant Vice-President (Business Development) of NSEL, was arrested by the EOW of the Mumbai police marking the first arrest in the payment crisis. Subsequently, a day later on 10 October 2013, the EOW of Mumbai Police arrested Jai Bahukhandi, the former Assistant Vice-President of NSEL. Former CEO and MD, Mr. Anjani Sinha, was the third arrest in the case; he was arrested a week later on 17 October 2013. The EOW has since invoked the MPID (Maharashtra Protection of Investors Deposit) Act, under which it can attach properties and assets of the accused, for the interest of the investors. Mr. Nilesh Patel of NK Proteins Ltd., the biggest borrower from the NSEL, was arrested on 22 October 2013 who got out on bail subsequently. Mr. Surinder Gupta of PD Agroprocessors who owns Dunar brand rice has been arrested by EOW on 5 March 2014. Mr. Gupta tried various delaying tactics with EOW, NSEL and investors. The EOW also arrested Rajesh Mehta of Swastik Overseas Ahmedabad who was one of the borrowers on 1 April 2014. On 6 January 2014, the EOW of Mumbai's crime branch submitted its first chargesheet in connection with NSEL payment crisis. The chargesheet mentions the names of the following five accused: Amit Mukherjee (Former VP, Business Development at NSEL) Jay Bahukhandi (former AVP at NSEL) Anjani Sinha (Former Chief Executive of NSEL) Nilesh Patel (MD of NK Proteins) Arunkumar Sharma (Promoter & Director of Lotus Refineries) In October 2013, EOW registered a case under the MPID Act in the NSEL scam. In the process, EOW attached defaulters' properties worth close to Rs. 4,500 crore across the country, and the MPID court initiated procedures to liquidate them so as to recover dues of depositors. The ED has attached properties of defaulters, worth around Rs. 800 crores in NSEL case. The EOW arrested defaulter borrowers Nilesh Patel (NK Proteins), Arun Sharma (Lotus Refineries), Surinder Gupta (PD Agro) and Indrajit Namdhari (Namdhari Foods). On 11 August 2014, the EOW recently arrested the following officials from six defaulting companies on NSEL. Kailash Aggarwal (Ark Imports) Narayanam Nageswara Rao (NCS Sugar) B V H Prasad (Juggernaut Projects) Varun Gupta (Vimladevi Agrotech) Chandra Mohan Singhal (Vimladevi Agrotech) Ghantakameshwar Rao (Spin-cot Textiles) Prashant Boorugu (Metcore Steel & Alloys) Rajvardhan Sinha, ACP, EOW of Mumbai Police said in an interview that the defaulters were not forthcoming with information pertaining to certain money flows, etc. The investigating official felt that custodial interrogation would help in tracing the fund flow. "The maximum money has been invested in immovable properties, some money has been used for payment of previous debt and some has just disappeared in a sense that it has been spent. Rs. 5,600 crore is gone. But most of the amount has been turned into assets," Rajvardhan added.Arrests by EOW MumbaiAllegation on investigative agenciesThe investors of NSEL formed an organization by the name of NIF in the month of August 2013. However investors who were dissatisfied with brokers’ role in NIF formed a pure investors’ organization by the name of NIAG (NSEL Investors Action Group). The NIAG has written multiple letters to Enforcement Directorate and CBI alleging lax and compromised investigation.Suspected foul play in detecting NSEL-FTIL email data/seversThere are serious allegations on Mumbai Police EOW of tampering with NSEL-FTIL email servers. While earlier it was confirmed by Rajvardhan Sinha of Mumbai EOW that the mail server of NSEL/FTIL has crashed and has been sent to Bangalore for investigation. Ketan Shah the man leading NSEL investors' association NIAG has leveled charges on the investigating agencies of misleading the court. The EOW of Mumbai Police has appointed Mahindra Defence Arm as the digital forensic auditor to probe the NSEL crisis.CBI ActionIndia's premier investigation agency The Central Bureau of Investigation raided various NSEL and borrowers' offices as well as the residence of Jignesh Shah and booked an FIR under prevention of corruption act for the funds that MMTC and PEC -two public sector units were made to invest in NSEL. [33] Jignesh Shah and Joseph Massey have also been booked in this FIR.However investors have complained that CBI has taken no action against politicians/bureaucrats involved in this scam. The CBI conducted searches at 15 locations to unravel the conspiracy to get Project & Equipment Corporation (PEC), a PSU, to trade on NSEL. The fraud by a group of people resulted in an alleged loss of Rs. 120.75 crore to PEC, said the CBI in a press release on 13 March 2014. The CBI agency conducted simultaneous searches at 11 locations, including offices of brokers, PEC officials and traders in New Delhi and Karnal. The CBI also registered a case against certain officials of PEC on allegations that the accused were party to a criminal conspiracy to cheat PEC.Role of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, FMC & the UPA GovernmentIn a show cause notice dated April 27, 2012, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs asked NSEL certain clarifications regarding the trades. NSEL promptly replied to this notice but for a year and half after the show cause notice, no action was taken by the Ministry. Instead, merely on the recommendation of the FMC, it ordered sudden and abrupt closure of NSEL on July 12, 2013. Shockingly enough, the same FMC did a U-turn, and on July 19, 2013 wrote to Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) stating that the exemption notification was silent on whether the exemption was applicable to all or specific provisions of the FCR Act. As per the orders of the DCA, NSEL suspended trading on July 31, 2013. This sudden and abrupt closure of the Exchange market led to the payment default of Rs 5600 crore.In fact, NSPOT did not even reply to the show cause notice sent to it by the DCA. Still, no action was taken against it. On the other hand, unlike at NSEL which was directed on 12 July 2013 to close the running contracts on their maturity, and not to launch any fresh contracts, NSPOT was allowed a gradual closure over the next year and half. Had similar long-term arrangement been provided to NSEL, the payments crisis would not have occurred.Forensic audits by Choksi and ChoksiAfter petition by certain investors who wanted to derail the Eseries settlement by NSEL, the Bombay High Court directed the FMC to appoint a forensic auditor for Eseries products of NSEL. An audit firm by the name of Choksi and Choksi was given this assignment and their audit report had given a clean chit regarding the Eseries contracts on NSEL, which made the FMC give a NOC for Eseries settlement and over 40,000 genuine claimants of Eseries benefitted eventually.The role of the Promoters/FTIL/Jignesh ShahVarious courts including the Bombay High Court and investigative agencies probing the case have stated that no money trail has been traced to NSEL, FTIL or its promoters. The entire default amount has gone to the 24 defaulters/borrowers. Jignesh Shah also came on TV on 5 August 2013, and promised a financial settlement. Mr. Jignesh Shah also promised a committee of three to look into the scam.The role of Brokers/ArrestsSEBI has issued show-cause notices to the top five brokers namely Anand Rathi Commodities, India Infoline Commodities (IIFL), Geofin Comtrade, Motilal Oswal Commodities, and Phillip Commodities, on charges of mis-selling NSEL contracts by promising assured returns without ensuring delivery. Since the brokers have also been accused of indulging in massive manipulation of client KYCs, large-scale modification of client codes for doing multiple deals and infusion of unaccounted money through their NBFCs, SEBI has asked them as to why they should not be declared not “fit and proper” since they were found to have violated securities regulations. In the notice, SEBI, has conveyed to these errant brokers that ‘it is alleged that your continuance as a market intermediary in the securities market is detrimental to the interest of this market…’ In the first show-cause notice, the allegations include several irregularities/violations such as false assurances to investors, wrong and misleading statements, arbitrage products sold with assured returns and as risk-free products, funding of clients and client code modification for those trading on NSEL. “For grant of certificate of registration, the application has to be a fit and proper person in terms of regulation of the Stock Brokers Regulations, read with Schedule II of the SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008. Further, the conditions stipulate that the stock broker shall at all times abide by the rules, regulation, by-laws of the stock exchange and code of conduct as specified in Schedule II of the stock exchange regulations...it is alleged that your continuance as a market intermediary in the securities market is detrimental to the interest of this market," the SCN states. “Therefore, it is alleged that you are no longer a ‘fit and proper' person for holding the certificate of registration in the securities market." In the second show-cause notice, media reports said, SEBI sent notices to five broker firms, as it was not satisfied with the explanation offered by them on allegations of mis-selling. The SEBI officers have formed an opinion that the brokers should not be granted licences for commodity business.The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Mumbai Police also found evidence of large scale irregularities on the part of these brokers in the NSEL case. A forensic audit by the EOW also revealed hawala transactions, benami trades and client code modifications by these brokers. The NSEL Investors' Action Group (NIAG) – a forum of NSEL investors requested the EOW to take strict action against these brokers who “falsely sold NSEL as an 'arbitrage product.' Several key brokers including Motilal Oswal undertook Power of Attorney to buy/sell/receive/deliver NSEL commodities on behalf of the investors and also opened DMAT (dematerialized) accounts to handle warehouse receipts of commodities in electronic form. “These brokers have also been accused of criminal breach of trust for parting with investors' monies without securing warehouse receipts as promised," the NSEL investors said in a letter to the Commissioner of Mumbai Police. The Hon. Bombay High Court in its judgment dated August 22, 2014 also observed that "…brokers do have their own legal team and a full knowledge of how the market operates. The legalities of the transactions were quite expected to be known to the brokers … the brokers being quite experienced, and the investors being informed persons, it is apparent that the issue of illegality of the transactions raised by them is not out of their concern to adhere to legalities, but in order to project the applicant (Mr Jignesh Shah) as the main offender, rather than the defaulting parties. On March 3, 2015, the EOW, Mumbai arrested 3 top brokers in the NSEL case. Those arrested were Amit Rathi, managing director of Anand Rathi Financial Services Ltd; C P Krishnan of Geojit Comtrade Ltd; and Chintan Modi of India Infoline Ltd (IIFL).The three were charged with mis-selling NSEL products, cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy, among other charges.Role of auditors/Mukesh P ShahEditMukesh P Shah who is a maternal uncle of Jignesh Shah has been internal as well as external auditor of NSEL from time to time. Mumbai police while opposing his anticipatory bail confirmed that he was doing insider-trading in FTIL shares and by virtue of possession of FTIL shares alone he should have been disqualified as an auditor. Besides,Mumbai police has confirmed that most companies of 'Rawal Group' where La Fin Financial Services P. Ltd. (promoter of FTIL) had a stake were registered at NSEL at the address of Mukesh Shah and Mukesh Shah was the auditor of all these companies which traded on NSEL to the tune of 1352 Crores and moved out in May–June 2013 without losing a penny showing their knowledge of the scam. [46]Anjani Sinha's custodial statementAnjani Sinha, the sacked CEO and the MD of the company, confessed and owned up the entire responsibility of the crisis in his first affidavit. However, after his arrest, he did a complete U-turn retracting his earlier affidavit. In his custodial statement to the EOW authorities, Anjani Sinha squarely blamed Jignesh Shah and even called him ‘mastermind’ of the entire crisis. Sinha also claimed that Shah forcibly took away the passports belonging to him and his wife and made them sign confessional statements which were allegedly drafted by FTIL. However, later on, in a statement to the Enforcement Directorate, Sinha disowned his custodial statement to the EOW and admitted to the contents of his first affidavit.NSEL–FTIL mergerOn 21 October 2014, invoking Sec. 396 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Ministry of Corporate affairs announced a draft order for merger of NSEL, a subsidiary of FTIL. All stakeholders were given 60 days to report to MCA. FTIL challenged this merger in Bombay HC. Hearing an application filed by the government, the Bench comprising Justices SC Dharmadhikari and BP Colabawala granted the govt time till 15 February 2016. On 12 February 2016, the MCA passed the final order of merger between FTIL and NSEL. This order has been challenged by FTIL in Bombay High Court and it is stayed till the arguments will be heard on merit. Based on MCA’s own circular dated April 20, 2011, it is a known fact that for any merger to materialize, permission of 100% shareholders and 90% creditors needs to be obtained. By forcing the merger on 63,000 shareholders of FTIL without so much as giving them a chance to consent/object to the amalgamation, MCA not only went against its own circular but also against Article 14 of the Constitution. The forced merger violates the sacrosanct concept of ‘limited liability’ and is not in public interest. Third, the “corporate veil” between NSEL and FTIL cannot be lifted until the so-called “parental fraud” by FTIL is proven in a court of law. The issue is currently sub judice.MCA's move to take over FTIL boardEditOn 28 February 2015, even as the MCA had gone ahead with its idea of forced merger, it moved a petition before the Company Law Board now known as the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to take over the board of FTIL and replace it with govt. nominated directors. FTIL challenged this, too. On 30 June 2015, the NCLT barred FTIL from selling its assets which was promptly stayed by the Madras High Court on appeal by FTIL. However, on 19 April, the Supreme Court reversed this stay and froze all assets of FTIL barring day to day expenses. It is noteworthy that it is unlawful to takeover and regulate the affairs of a listed Company based on erroneous assumptions, that too, after almost 20 months without ascertaining the alleged ‘oppression’ and ‘mismanagement’ under Sec 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The MCA also invoked Sections 401, 402 and 408 requesting NCLT for takeover or dissolution of FTIL Board. Interestingly, the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, in its opinion dated June 4, 2014, clarified that the said sections are not applicable to FTIL-NSEL case. Sharing his legal opinion with the MCA, the deputy legal advisor in the Ministry of Law and Justice, said that “Section 397 might not apply as NSEL which is (almost) wholly owned subsidiary of FTIL and NSEL’s majority shareholders (i.e. FTIL) have never acted in any manner which could be termed as ‘oppressive’ against the minority shareholder of the company. Section 398 might also not be applicable as fraud and acts and mismanagements were allegedly done by the key officials and employees of NSEL and not FTIL and different statutory auditors have issued clearances to them.” NSEL also made necessary changes in its management and board after the crisis came to light. Despite this, the MCA has sought to replace the reconstituted Board of FTIL when no wrongdoing is found. This is seen as a clear attempt to suppress / destroy the evidence against the errant brokers and FMC, then the regulator of commodities markets.Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU)'s ObservationFIU (under Finance Ministry) held that NSEL came under the purview of Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act (FCRA) and therefore guilty of failing in several of these obligations under the law. The black money watchdog has slapped a penalty of Rs 1.66 crore for several counts of violating the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on NSEL. The watch dog further held that failures is deliberate and willful and hence, invite penalties. NSEL is fined Rs.1 lac for each failure and the collective fine was Rs.1.66 crore.SFIO ProbeThe Government of India ordered SFIO (Serious Fraud Investigation Office) probe on FTIL and its 18 associates, brokers and defaulters pertaining to irregularities on NSEL. SFIO has sent a 6-page questionnaire to all the trading clients in NSEL demanding to know whether brokers played a role in ‘inducing’ them to trade in the commodities. The SFIO has also queried trading clients on alleged non-payment of value-added tax at the time of trading.Court quashes allegations against MCXA Metropolitan Court quashed allegations of a 900 Cr scam at MCX. This is the latest update in response to an earlier FIR filed by Mumbai Police raising questions of insider trading at MCX. The court in its findings cited an audit report conducted by PWC, ruling that it was based on hearsay and dismissed the protest petition. It however accepted the C-summary report filed by the investigating officer.Insider trading related to NSEL scamThe Security and Exchange board of India (SEBI) has found various FTIL/MCX directors guilty of insider trading when the NSEL scam was being unveiled.Sucheta Dalal's knowledge of NSEL scamIt was discovered that even 15 months before the NSEL scam went public, India's leading financial journalist Sucheta Dalal knew all major aspects of the fraud. An email dated 8 May 2012 from Sucheta to Jignesh Shah, Anjani Shah etc. came in public domain which revealed that Sucheta knew about illegality and lack of safety of NSEL product. A complaint has been filed with Mumbai police by NSEL Investors' Action Group to investigate Sucheta Dalal's role. Sucheta knew about illegality of contracts, role of IBMA and the fact that the warehouses were in so called borrowers' own premises.Chargesheets by Agencies in NSEL caseThe CBI has filed a charge sheet against FTIL, Jignesh Shah, NSEL and various shell companies in NSEL scam matter. The EOW of Mumbai police has also filed chargesheet against Jignesh Shah which lists out how Jignesh Shah cooked the books of NSEL.Source: NSEL case - Wikipedia