Although Mukesh Ambani’s brother Anil Ambani is making a successful comeback, his troubles show no signs of ending. SEBI has asked him to pay Rs 154.5 crore. In fact, market regulator SEBI has notified six entities, including the promoter entity of Reliance Home Finance, asking them to pay Rs 154.50 crore. This notice has been given to the company regarding embezzlement.
SEBI has asked these units to make the payment within 15 days. Failure to do so has been warned of confiscation of assets and bank accounts.
Names of these companies included.
The units that have been issued notices include Crest Logistics and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (Now CLE Pvt. Ltd.), Reliance Unicorn Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Reliance Exchange Next Ltd., Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd., Reliance Business Broadcast News Holdings Ltd. And Reliance Cleangen Ltd. A demand notice has arrived for non-payment of fine by these units.
The regulator has ordered these entities to pay Rs 25.75 crore each in six separate notices. This includes interest and recovery costs. In case of non-payment of the fees, the regulator will recover the amount through the seizure and sale of the movable and immovable property of these units. Apart from this, your bank accounts will also be attached.
Why did you receive the notice?
In August this year, SEBI had banned industrialist Anil Ambani, former key officials of Reliance Home Finance and 24 other entities from the stock market for five years for misappropriation of company funds. The regulator imposed a fine of Rs 25 million on Ambani. He had planted. He was also banned from holding a key management or managerial position in any listed company or brokers registered with the market regulator for five years.
Banned for 6 months
Additionally, the regulator banned Reliance Home Finance from the stock market for six months and imposed a fine of Rs 6 lakh. SEBI said in the 222-page final order that Anil Ambani misappropriated the amount with the help of key management-level employees of RHFL. This amount was shown as if the units associated with them had obtained a loan from the company.
However, the board of directors of RHFL had issued strict instructions to stop such lending activities and was regularly reviewing the company. But the company’s management ignored these orders.
