SC: Clarificatory Statement Does Not Constitute a Binding Undertaking for Contempt Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Litigant Cannot be Worse Off for Filing an Appeal under ‘No Reformatio in Peius’  ||  Orissa HC: Article 22(1) Arrest Rights Pre-Exist, Written Grounds Ruling Not Prospective  ||  Kerala HC: Kissing a Child’s Penis Constitutes Penetrative Sexual Assault under POCSO  ||  Madras HC: Married Daughter Cannot be Denied Compassionate Appointment Solely for Her Marriage  ||  Bombay High Court: Child Welfare Prevails as ‘Joint Parenting’ is Not Recognised in Indian Law  ||  Kerala HC: Minor’s Consent or Relationship with Accused Holds No Relevance under POCSO Act  ||  Bombay HC: Failure to Prove Exact Quantum of Loss Does Not Bar Compensation  ||  CCPA Fines Dial4Trade Rs. 10 Lakh for Online Ammonium Nitrate Listing Featuring Blast Images  ||  Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order    

Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes and Protection of Depositors’ Interests Bill, 2015 - (03 May 2016)

MANU/PIBU/0414/2016

Banking

The suggestion period for ‘Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes and Protection of Depositors’ Interests Bill’ may have closed on 30 April 2016, but what do the proposals promise?

The Bill is a culmination of measures suggested by an Inter-Ministerial Group identifying gaps in the existing regulatory framework for ‘deposit taking’. Basically, it bans entities not supervised by any regulator or government body from taking deposits.

Unregulated deposit schemes, like pyramid schemes, have been used to swindle depositors out of enormous sums of money. The Saradha chit fund in West Bengal and PACL are examples of schemes that have solicited thousands of crores of rupees from investors looking for ‘big returns’ in a short time. The schemes are usually allied with other ‘promises’ such as a job or property to lure investors.

Tags : UNREGULATED DEPOSITS   PYRAMID SCHEMES    

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved