Raju to return Rs 1.8k cr

Also Read

Russian woman with two daughters rescued from Gokarna cave in Karnataka

2 hours ago

EC activates field machinery for possible pan-India voter list revision from next month

2 hours ago

Mumbai, Sept 10: In a fresh order in the nearly seven-year-old Satyam scam case, regulator Sebi Thursday asked 10 entities linked to the main accused B Ramalinga Raju — including his mother, brother and son — to disgorge over `1,800 crore worth of illegal gains made by them.
They will also have to pay close to `1,500 crore as interest on the disgorgement amount, as the penalty has been levied with effect from January 7, 2009 — the day Raju, Satyam Computer’s founder and then chairman, admitted to a massive and long-running fraud.
The latest penalties for insider trading follow an earlier disgorgement order that was passed by Sebi in July 2014, wherein the regulator had barred Raju and four others from the markets for 14 years and also asked them to return `1,849 crore worth of unlawful gains with interest.
That order was against Ramlinga Raju, his brother B Rama Raju (then managing director of Satyam), Vadlamani Srinivas (ex-CFO), G Ramakris­hna (ex-vice president) and VS Prabhakara Gupta (ex-head of internal audit).
In Thursday’s order, Sebi also fixed individual liability of Raju, his two brothers and other individuals and firms linked to the promoter family.
Those against whom the latest order has been passed include SRSR Holdings (controlled by Raju brothers), IL&FS Engineering and Construction, or IECCL (formerly known as Maytas Infra that was controlled by Raju and his two sons), Raju’s mother B Appala­narasamma, his two sons Teja Raju and Rama Raju Jr, his brother Suryanarayana Raju, B Jhansi Rani (the wife of Surya­narayana), Chintalapati Srinivasa (the then director of Satyam) and his father Anjiraju Chintalapati (since deceased), as also Chintalapati Holdings Pvt Ltd.
Sebi however said IECCL was neither an insider in Saty­am Computers and Maytas, nor did it have any access to the “unpublished price sensitive information”, and therefore the firm has been spared of any debarment action. PTI