Pathanamthitta: The CPM district committee has opposed the DGP's order that said cases filed against Popular Finance at various police stations should be transferred to the Konni police station.
Widespread allegations were raised that the order to transfer all cases to the Konni police station and club these under one FIR was an attempt to help Popular Finance. The district committee has approached the Chief Minister to rectify the DGP's order.
The party said that the depositors should be allowed to file complaints in those police stations where the Popular Finance branches are located.
The police should be ready to file a case in each of the complaints. The party also demanded that the government take steps to ensure that the assets of the owners of Popular Finance are not transferred.
The CPM also demanded that the provisions of the Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act be invoked in the case. The district committee also asked the government to set up a special court for the quick disposal of all the cases against Popular Finance.
Popular Finance, with headquarters at Konni in Pathanamthitta, is at the centre of a multi-crore deposits scam.
The party pointed out that service pensioners, expats, merchants, farmers and labourers are among the depositors at the firm. Ordinary citizens were swindled off their savings of a lifetime. The owners duped people of their deposits and invested these in foreign countries. A fraud to the tune of Rs 2,000 crore was allegedly committed.
District secretary K P Udayabhanu also lauded the government for arresting the owners before they could flee the country.
Protecting the depositors
The Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Bill was first presented in the Assembly in 2012. The State formulated the law based on the Centre's instruction after the Sahara investment scam. The Act came into effect with the President's approval in 2015. However, this Act has seldom been evoked in cases.
The provisions of this Act could be invoked in the Popular Finance case.
Main provisions of the law
• The government can appoint an officer with special powers to attach the property of the firms involved in the investment scam and to manage the money received from it.
• If the firm defaults in repaying the deposits or the interest rate to the customer, the owners/officials can be imprisoned up to 10 years and slapped with a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
• The government can attach the moveable and immovable assets of the firms, that do not return the deposits or the interests, and use this money to repay the depositors.
• However, if this money is not sufficient to pay back the depositors or if the owners do not have assets to be attached, then the government can attach the property of the firm's promoters, partners, directors, managers, director board member and hand these over to the officer with special powers.
• The officer can take the required steps to fulfil the provisions of the law.
• A special account should be opened in any of the scheduled banks to park the money received from the attachment and liquidation of properties.
• One or two special courts with the equivalent status of a sessions court can be set up for the trial into the investment scam.
• If the case linked to the scam is under the jurisdiction of another court, this should be transferred to the special court. The complete authority should be vested in the special court.
• One or more special public prosecutors can be designated to handle the case.
• Special court can directly deal with the case without it being transferred from the lower courts.
• If the owner agrees to repay the deposits in full, with or without the interest, then the special officer can settle the case. If this is after the trial has started, then the case can be settled with the court's permission.
• If the assets of the finance firm's owners are transferred, then the court can attach those properties through a notice. To avoid the attachment procedures, the person who procured the assets will have to file an explanation in court.
