Banks may recover more from Vijay Mallya assets than in most IBC resolutions, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Banks are set to recover more from selling assets of fugitive Vijay Mallya than they are realising from most default cases under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code mechanism.

The IBC was notified in 2016 after Vijay Mallya’s defaults. A special court in Mumbai dealing with cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has asked lifted the claim of the Enforcement Directorate on the Mallya’s assets it had seized, paving the way for banks to sell them to recover their dues.

The assets including several floors of the UB City commercial tower in Bengaluru’s central business district and shares in United Breweries and United Spirits that Mallya had controlled are estimated to be valued at Rs 5,646.54 crore. The banks reportedly have outstanding dues of Rs 11,000 crore. (Including the penalty and interest charges as the total amount due was Rs. 9000 crore in 2016)

“Lenders have security. Irrespective of what Vijay Mallya does, bankers have the security to recover their dues from his assets. And that security is very good and valuable. Recently, the PMLA court has approved the sale of his assets. In Mallya’s case, whatever is the narrative, whatever be his mistakes. I am sure the lender will recover better than many other stressed assets,” former SBI chairman Rajnsh Kumar told ETBFSI recently.

Mallya’s dues

The principal amount that Kingfisher had borrowed from the banks is Rs 5,400 crore. The largest lenders to the airline are State Bank of India with an exposure of Rs 1,400 crore, Punjab National Bank with Rs 7,00 crore and Bank of Baroda with Rs 500 crore. The loans are the principal amounts that banks lent to the airline without calculating the interest on it.

The court order

The PMLA court had noted that the assets it restored to banks were insufficient to fully recover their loss, which was estimated at Rs 6,203 crore.

Concluding that the restoration of properties to the banks was done in “good faith”, the court said: “…claimants are public sector banks and these banks are dealing with the public money. There cannot be any personal or private interest of said claimants to pursue such a claim against the present respondents and accused.”

The court noted that even Mallya himself had placed a proposal for repayment of the due amount. Had there really been no loss to the applicant banks, then, why was Mallya ready to repay the loss, it asked.

The court held that prima facie there was falsification of accounts of Kingfisher, which it said Mallya had full control of.

The airline did not have offshore operations, but its accounts allegedly indicate expenditure for fuel abroad, the court said. Also, despite it being virtually in default, the airline company during 2009-2011 transferred part of the loan amount to Force India Formula 1 racing team that Mallya had controlled, it said.

Comparison with other IBC cases

This week the NCLT passed an order giving Videocon Industries to Twin Star of Vedanta group. The resolution yielded less than 10% for lenders.

Bankers have lost over Rs 40,000 crore in the Videocon account, as Anil Agarwal’s Twin Star snapped the company for less than Rs 3,000 crore. This has been the story for most cases under IBC where barring the top nine accounts the average recoveries have been just 24%.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

PayPal faces Rs 96 lakh penalty for violating India’s anti-money laundering processes, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


American online payment gateway giant PayPal has been imposed a Rs 96 lakh penalty by the FIU for alleged contravention of the anti-money laundering law and accused of “concealing” suspect financial transactions and abetting “disintegration” of India’s financial system.

PayPal, which began India operations in November 2017, said it was fully committed to follow due processes and is “carefully reviewing the matter”.

The company has also been charged with “defeating and frustrating” the tenets of public interest and the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which aims to keep the country’s financial system safe from economic crimes, terrorist financing and black money transactions.

Calling the contraventions as “deliberate and wilful”, the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) in a scathing 27-page order issued on December 17 held the company guilty on three broad counts, the fundamental being its failure to register itself as a “reporting entity” with the federal agency as mandated under the PMLA.

“…I, in exercise of powers conferred upon me under section 13(2)(d) of the PMLA, 2002 impose a total fine of Rs 96 lakh only on PayPal Payments Private Limited which will be commensurate with the violations committed by it,” the order issued by FIU Director Pankaj Kumar Mishra said.

It said that “there is ample evidence of the willful violation of the law and, therefore, PayPal cannot be let off with a penalty that should normally be imposed for minor violations”.

The order directs the company to pay the fine within 45 days and also register itself as a reporting entity with the FIU, appoint a principal officer and director for communication within a fortnight of the receipt of the order.

An appeal against the order can also be made before the Appellate Tribunal of the PMLA within 1.5 months.

A PayPal spokesperson told that it “is fully committed to regulatory compliance.”

“We take our obligations seriously across 200 markets where our payments platform is present. We are carefully reviewing the matter and we cannot comment further at this point,” he said.

This is for the first time that the FIU, an agency under the Union finance ministry, has undertaken punitive action against an online payment system operating in the country like it has done against public, private and cooperative banks in the past for not following anti-money laundering procedures in keeping their financial channels clean.

As per the order accessed by , the legal tussle between the FIU and PayPal began in March, 2018 when the latter asked the company to register as a reporting entity for keeping “record” of all transactions, reporting suspicious transactions and cross-border wire transfers to the FIU and for identifying beneficiaries of these funds.

The FIU analyses and shares these reports with various intelligence and investigative agencies for further action.

As per the order issued under section 13 of the PMLA, PayPal refused the FIU’s directive and hence a show cause notice was issued to it in September last year.

PayPal defended its action and cited Reserve Bank of India guidelines to state that it only operates as an Online Payment Gateway Service Provider (OPGSP) or a payment intermediary in India and is “not covered within the definition of a payment system operator or financial institution and in turn, not covered under the definition of a reporting entity under the PMLA”.

“Therefore, at this time, payment intermediaries, such as PayPal, are not required to register as such with the FIU-India,” it said in its reply to the agency.

PayPal also stated that it has “submitted” to the RBI its decision to cease domestic payment aggregator business in India before June next year.

The FIU, however, rejected its claims and said PayPal was very much involved in handling of funds in India, is a “finanical institution” and hence qualifies to be a reporting entity under the PMLA.

“The business model offered by PayPal clearly indicated that it not only acts as an intermediary but actively undertakes money transfer operations…

“PayPal undertakes to settle an online transaction by moving money from the customer’s account (issuing bank) to the merchant account, which ultimately transmits funds to the merchant’s bank account (acquiring bank) when the transaction is finalised,” the order said.

It added, “By virtue of enabling payment system for its users by way of credit card, debit card, money transfer operations, PayPal is functioning as a payment system operator and is therefore deemed to be a reporting entity…”

The order said while the company “defies” the process in India, its parent company in the US – PayPal Inc. – reports suspicious transactions to the American FIU and also to similar agencies in Australia and the UK.

Sharing of suspicious transaction reports by PayPal was “crucial” in enabling FIU to share such information with Indian law enforcement agencies and by refusing to register it was “not only concealing suspect financial transactions but is also abetting in the disintegration of India’s financial system” and posing “enhanced risk to the financial system of India”, the order said.

It noted that if PayPal’s contention was accepted, the objective of the anti-money laundering law would be rendered “redundant” and other such entities “will find some reason to technically escape being categorised as one (reporting entity) and frustrate the very purpose and object of the PMLA”.



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY