Security Industry Regulation 2003: Fill & Download for Free

In March 2007, Reliance Industries (RIL) top bosses decided to raise some money by selling part of its stake in Reliance Petroleum (RPL). When a stake sale happens in the open market, the stock price of the company who’s stocks are being sold plummets because of excess supply. RIL did not want to sell at a low price. They hired 12 different shell companies and instructed them to short RPL’s future contracts in the derivative markets before they actually sold any equity stocks in the cash market. The futures would fall in price and would net a gargantuan profit for RIL. The shell companies were to transfer the profits to RIL while they could retain the commissions earned on the transactions.Between November 1 and 5 (front entities short futures) RPL’s stock closed at an all-time high of Rs 269 on Nov 2. The 12 different entities started shorting futures contracts of RPL. They shorted so much that by Nov 5, they constituted 48.64% of the entire open interest.November 6, RPL hit 95% of the market wide position limit and was moved to the banned segment, so new futures positions could be not taken.Between Nov 6 and Nov 23 (RIL starts selling RPL stocks) RIL sold 18.04 crore shares of RPL in the open market, amounting to 4.01% of RPL’s equity, a total of 4,023 crores. In the chart above you can see how hard the stock was hammered down because of all the selling. It fell from Rs 267 on Nov 6 straight to Rs 209 by Nov 23.On Nov 29, the expiry day of the futures contracts shorted earlier in the month, RIL sold 1.95 crore equity shares in the last 10 minutes of trading. The sell orders were placed way below the market price, with an intent to push down the price. It worked, RPL’s stock fell substantially between 3:21 and 3:30 pm, hence affecting the settlement price of the futures contracts. The futures settled at Rs 215.How much money did RIL make off their short futures? They shorted 9.92 crore shares at around Rs 267. These futures expired at Rs 215. That’s a profit of Rs (267 - 215) x 9.92 crores = 515 crores.Essentially, the company traded on its own inside information, a clear breach of Securities Contracts Act 1956, SEBI Act 1992 and Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, 2003.SEBI has published a detailed report on this: http://www.sebi.gov.in/cms/sebi_data/attachdocs/1490368260664.pdf

This is from an article in the Evening Standard, dated 2013, so not absolutely current,“Up to six million CCTV cameras are operating in Britain in places ranging from trains and shops to catteries, sewage plants and stud farms, a new study revealed today.The research, conducted for the British Security Industry Association, says that cameras monitoring railway and Tube stations, roads, schools and universities are among those controlled by police or other public authorities.But it says that there are 70 times more cameras operated privately by businesses and others using the devices for reasons including the protection of property, crime detection, or safety.It says the findings, which represent one of the most comprehensive attempts to assess the extent of CCTV use, indicate that notions of a “Big Brother” state are misplaced because relatively few of the country’s cameras are in the authorities’ control.It warns that a bigger concern is the lack of regulation governing privately run cameras and says that new rules are needed to enforce better standards.The conclusions, unveiled today in London, will revive the debate about the so-called “surveillance society” and follow the introduction last year of new government guidelines to control the use of state cameras in the Home Office’s Protection of Freedoms Act.The study, which uses complex calcuations based on the number of different types of property, average floor areas and other data, says that a precise total is impossible, but estimates that there are between 4.1 million and just over 5.9 million cameras nationwide.It says there are probably only 70,255 cameras in public control — defined as local authorities and police — which is “perhaps only 1.2 to 1.7 per cent” of the overall number in use.Local authority cameras are given as 59,753 across Britain, although this figure dates from 2009, while police are reported to have 10,502 cameras.Transport for London has 13,000 cameras on the Tube network, double the 2003 figure — an average of 52 cameras for each of the 250 stations.State schools are estimated to have between 290,000 to 370,000 cameras.By contrast, today’s study says that there are 2.7 million cameras in shops, offices and warehouses and lists a range of other establishments where the CCTV is used — including universities, kennels, catteries, sewage works, stud farms, go kart tracks, zoos and safari parks, auction rooms, landfill sites and golf driving ranges.”So if this is correct some 98% of all the cameras are operated privately. Shops, Factories, offices, private houses etc form the majority. This poses an interesting dilemma, should the state limit the right of business owners and private individuals to mount cameras on their property?Then I think there is probably a general agreement amongst parents that schools have the right to mount cameras, and a large majority of the population does not object to surveillance of public areas. Particularly as they will not be commiting any offences but the cameras do result in some criminals being apprehended.So for the majority, the cameras are a nuisance but also a safety and security comfort.Speaking personally I am one of those odd people who does not like having their photo taken and there is to my knowledge only one picture of me taken in the last 10 plus years, but then I know I’m odd. I also live in a rural area and probably do not pass a camera that often. So this business of cameras does not bother me personally.If the UK is getting Orwellian, then it is probably with the implicit agreement of the public. Anyway as so many people seem to spend all their lives taking pictures of themselves (why???) I am sure they are delighted to be on security cameras.

So that she could pretend to be someone with the kind of experience that would add credibility to the first Cormoran Strike novel. The cover blurb for The Cuckoo’s Calling falsely claimed:“Born in 1968, Robert Galbraith is married with two sons. After several years with the Royal Military Police, he was attached to the SIB (Special Investigation Branch), the plain-clothes branch of the RMP. He left the military in 2003 and has been working since then in the civilian security industry. The idea for protagonist Cormoran Strike grew directly out of his own experiences and those of his military friends who have returned to the civilian world. ‘Robert Galbraith’ is a pseudonym.”Personally I think that is disgracefully misleading and should have been actionable under the Trades Descriptions Act 1968 or The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.