Time Left - 12:00 mins
LIC AAO/AE Pre Mini Quiz-8
Attempt now to get your rank among 1074 students!
Question 1
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
On the face of it, the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s decision to slap a penalty of ₹ 7,269 crores, its highest ever, on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilizing funds under an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS) may appear harsh. This is in addition to an earlier disgorgement order which directed the firm to refund ₹ 49,100 crores collected from investors. But PACL seems like a fit case for SEBI to levy deterrent penalties, given its long-running crusade against Ponzi operators who target the most vulnerable section of small savers. Over the last couple of years, SEBI has unearthed over 200 money-pooling schemes that hadn’t registered with it, in violation of its CIS regulations. But PACL has been the largest and most blatant repeat offender under this law. The group is estimated to have raised ₹ 49,100 crores from over 5.85 crore investors, making it larger in scope than the Sahara scam.
PACL’s modus operandi was to collect upfront payments from small investors in the villages of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for a scheme to ‘develop’ barren agricultural land situated in far-flung States. Investigations revealed that the scheme had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi operation. For one, though they were ostensibly buying land, PACL’s investors had no say either in the location or the development of the plots they bought. Two, plots across different regions were sold for identical prices, on the promise of fabulous returns. Worst of all, PACL did not even own 80 percent of the land that is sold. As these facts came to light, SEBI issued its first cease-and-desist notice to PACL in 1998.
But for the 16 years that followed, PACL adopted various dilatory tactics to stymie the regulator by refusing to comply with directives, failing to appear for hearings, and filing counterclaims in the high court, even as it continued to mobilize new money. Along the way, thanks to the somewhat ambiguous definition of a CIS under the original regulations, it even secured a favorable ruling from the Rajasthan High Court. It is only when this ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court last year that SEBI was able to proceed against PACL in full measure. Thankfully, the definition of a CIS has since been tightened, with any money-pooling involving a corpus of ₹ 100 crores or more, now requiring registration.
In imposing this penalty on PACL, SEBI has used its newly won powers under the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, which specify a fine of up to three times the illegal profits made by perpetrators of fraud. Having imposed this mammoth disgorgement order and penalty though, the critical task ahead for SEBI would be to identify the actual small investors in PACL, so that the monies disgorged can be refunded to them. Little progress on this front has been made in the Sahara case. But a sound mechanism for restitution of lost money is a must-have if victims of financial fraud are to regain their faith in the system.
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com
On the face of it, the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s decision to slap a penalty of ₹ 7,269 crores, its highest ever, on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilizing funds under an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS) may appear harsh. This is in addition to an earlier disgorgement order which directed the firm to refund ₹ 49,100 crores collected from investors. But PACL seems like a fit case for SEBI to levy deterrent penalties, given its long-running crusade against Ponzi operators who target the most vulnerable section of small savers. Over the last couple of years, SEBI has unearthed over 200 money-pooling schemes that hadn’t registered with it, in violation of its CIS regulations. But PACL has been the largest and most blatant repeat offender under this law. The group is estimated to have raised ₹ 49,100 crores from over 5.85 crore investors, making it larger in scope than the Sahara scam.
PACL’s modus operandi was to collect upfront payments from small investors in the villages of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for a scheme to ‘develop’ barren agricultural land situated in far-flung States. Investigations revealed that the scheme had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi operation. For one, though they were ostensibly buying land, PACL’s investors had no say either in the location or the development of the plots they bought. Two, plots across different regions were sold for identical prices, on the promise of fabulous returns. Worst of all, PACL did not even own 80 percent of the land that is sold. As these facts came to light, SEBI issued its first cease-and-desist notice to PACL in 1998.
But for the 16 years that followed, PACL adopted various dilatory tactics to stymie the regulator by refusing to comply with directives, failing to appear for hearings, and filing counterclaims in the high court, even as it continued to mobilize new money. Along the way, thanks to the somewhat ambiguous definition of a CIS under the original regulations, it even secured a favorable ruling from the Rajasthan High Court. It is only when this ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court last year that SEBI was able to proceed against PACL in full measure. Thankfully, the definition of a CIS has since been tightened, with any money-pooling involving a corpus of ₹ 100 crores or more, now requiring registration.
In imposing this penalty on PACL, SEBI has used its newly won powers under the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, which specify a fine of up to three times the illegal profits made by perpetrators of fraud. Having imposed this mammoth disgorgement order and penalty though, the critical task ahead for SEBI would be to identify the actual small investors in PACL, so that the monies disgorged can be refunded to them. Little progress on this front has been made in the Sahara case. But a sound mechanism for restitution of lost money is a must-have if victims of financial fraud are to regain their faith in the system.
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com
Which among the following sentences is TRUE according to the passage?
(1) SEBI has imposed a penalty of Rs. 7000 cr. on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilising funds under an illegal collective investment scheme.
(2) PACL group have raised Rs. 49,100 cr. from over 5.85 cr. people, under their Ponzi schemes.
(3) The CIS definition states that if a money pooling scheme has a corpus of over Rs. 100 cr, it has to be registered with SEBI.
(1) SEBI has imposed a penalty of Rs. 7000 cr. on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilising funds under an illegal collective investment scheme.
(2) PACL group have raised Rs. 49,100 cr. from over 5.85 cr. people, under their Ponzi schemes.
(3) The CIS definition states that if a money pooling scheme has a corpus of over Rs. 100 cr, it has to be registered with SEBI.
Question 2
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
On the face of it, the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s decision to slap a penalty of ₹ 7,269 crores, its highest ever, on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilizing funds under an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS) may appear harsh. This is in addition to an earlier disgorgement order which directed the firm to refund ₹ 49,100 crores collected from investors. But PACL seems like a fit case for SEBI to levy deterrent penalties, given its long-running crusade against Ponzi operators who target the most vulnerable section of small savers. Over the last couple of years, SEBI has unearthed over 200 money-pooling schemes that hadn’t registered with it, in violation of its CIS regulations. But PACL has been the largest and most blatant repeat offender under this law. The group is estimated to have raised ₹ 49,100 crores from over 5.85 crore investors, making it larger in scope than the Sahara scam.
PACL’s modus operandi was to collect upfront payments from small investors in the villages of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for a scheme to ‘develop’ barren agricultural land situated in far-flung States. Investigations revealed that the scheme had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi operation. For one, though they were ostensibly buying land, PACL’s investors had no say either in the location or the development of the plots they bought. Two, plots across different regions were sold for identical prices, on the promise of fabulous returns. Worst of all, PACL did not even own 80 percent of the land that is sold. As these facts came to light, SEBI issued its first cease-and-desist notice to PACL in 1998.
But for the 16 years that followed, PACL adopted various dilatory tactics to stymie the regulator by refusing to comply with directives, failing to appear for hearings, and filing counterclaims in the high court, even as it continued to mobilize new money. Along the way, thanks to the somewhat ambiguous definition of a CIS under the original regulations, it even secured a favorable ruling from the Rajasthan High Court. It is only when this ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court last year that SEBI was able to proceed against PACL in full measure. Thankfully, the definition of a CIS has since been tightened, with any money-pooling involving a corpus of ₹ 100 crores or more, now requiring registration.
In imposing this penalty on PACL, SEBI has used its newly won powers under the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, which specify a fine of up to three times the illegal profits made by perpetrators of fraud. Having imposed this mammoth disgorgement order and penalty though, the critical task ahead for SEBI would be to identify the actual small investors in PACL, so that the monies disgorged can be refunded to them. Little progress on this front has been made in the Sahara case. But a sound mechanism for restitution of lost money is a must-have if victims of financial fraud are to regain their faith in the system.
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com
On the face of it, the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s decision to slap a penalty of ₹ 7,269 crores, its highest ever, on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilizing funds under an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS) may appear harsh. This is in addition to an earlier disgorgement order which directed the firm to refund ₹ 49,100 crores collected from investors. But PACL seems like a fit case for SEBI to levy deterrent penalties, given its long-running crusade against Ponzi operators who target the most vulnerable section of small savers. Over the last couple of years, SEBI has unearthed over 200 money-pooling schemes that hadn’t registered with it, in violation of its CIS regulations. But PACL has been the largest and most blatant repeat offender under this law. The group is estimated to have raised ₹ 49,100 crores from over 5.85 crore investors, making it larger in scope than the Sahara scam.
PACL’s modus operandi was to collect upfront payments from small investors in the villages of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for a scheme to ‘develop’ barren agricultural land situated in far-flung States. Investigations revealed that the scheme had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi operation. For one, though they were ostensibly buying land, PACL’s investors had no say either in the location or the development of the plots they bought. Two, plots across different regions were sold for identical prices, on the promise of fabulous returns. Worst of all, PACL did not even own 80 percent of the land that is sold. As these facts came to light, SEBI issued its first cease-and-desist notice to PACL in 1998.
But for the 16 years that followed, PACL adopted various dilatory tactics to stymie the regulator by refusing to comply with directives, failing to appear for hearings, and filing counterclaims in the high court, even as it continued to mobilize new money. Along the way, thanks to the somewhat ambiguous definition of a CIS under the original regulations, it even secured a favorable ruling from the Rajasthan High Court. It is only when this ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court last year that SEBI was able to proceed against PACL in full measure. Thankfully, the definition of a CIS has since been tightened, with any money-pooling involving a corpus of ₹ 100 crores or more, now requiring registration.
In imposing this penalty on PACL, SEBI has used its newly won powers under the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, which specify a fine of up to three times the illegal profits made by perpetrators of fraud. Having imposed this mammoth disgorgement order and penalty though, the critical task ahead for SEBI would be to identify the actual small investors in PACL, so that the monies disgorged can be refunded to them. Little progress on this front has been made in the Sahara case. But a sound mechanism for restitution of lost money is a must-have if victims of financial fraud are to regain their faith in the system.
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com
Which among the following were the wrong doings of PACL Ltd.?
Question 3
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
On the face of it, the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s decision to slap a penalty of ₹ 7,269 crores, its highest ever, on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilizing funds under an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS) may appear harsh. This is in addition to an earlier disgorgement order which directed the firm to refund ₹ 49,100 crores collected from investors. But PACL seems like a fit case for SEBI to levy deterrent penalties, given its long-running crusade against Ponzi operators who target the most vulnerable section of small savers. Over the last couple of years, SEBI has unearthed over 200 money-pooling schemes that hadn’t registered with it, in violation of its CIS regulations. But PACL has been the largest and most blatant repeat offender under this law. The group is estimated to have raised ₹ 49,100 crores from over 5.85 crore investors, making it larger in scope than the Sahara scam.
PACL’s modus operandi was to collect upfront payments from small investors in the villages of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for a scheme to ‘develop’ barren agricultural land situated in far-flung States. Investigations revealed that the scheme had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi operation. For one, though they were ostensibly buying land, PACL’s investors had no say either in the location or the development of the plots they bought. Two, plots across different regions were sold for identical prices, on the promise of fabulous returns. Worst of all, PACL did not even own 80 percent of the land that is sold. As these facts came to light, SEBI issued its first cease-and-desist notice to PACL in 1998.
But for the 16 years that followed, PACL adopted various dilatory tactics to stymie the regulator by refusing to comply with directives, failing to appear for hearings, and filing counterclaims in the high court, even as it continued to mobilize new money. Along the way, thanks to the somewhat ambiguous definition of a CIS under the original regulations, it even secured a favorable ruling from the Rajasthan High Court. It is only when this ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court last year that SEBI was able to proceed against PACL in full measure. Thankfully, the definition of a CIS has since been tightened, with any money-pooling involving a corpus of ₹ 100 crores or more, now requiring registration.
In imposing this penalty on PACL, SEBI has used its newly won powers under the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, which specify a fine of up to three times the illegal profits made by perpetrators of fraud. Having imposed this mammoth disgorgement order and penalty though, the critical task ahead for SEBI would be to identify the actual small investors in PACL, so that the monies disgorged can be refunded to them. Little progress on this front has been made in the Sahara case. But a sound mechanism for restitution of lost money is a must-have if victims of financial fraud are to regain their faith in the system.
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com
On the face of it, the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s decision to slap a penalty of ₹ 7,269 crores, its highest ever, on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilizing funds under an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS) may appear harsh. This is in addition to an earlier disgorgement order which directed the firm to refund ₹ 49,100 crores collected from investors. But PACL seems like a fit case for SEBI to levy deterrent penalties, given its long-running crusade against Ponzi operators who target the most vulnerable section of small savers. Over the last couple of years, SEBI has unearthed over 200 money-pooling schemes that hadn’t registered with it, in violation of its CIS regulations. But PACL has been the largest and most blatant repeat offender under this law. The group is estimated to have raised ₹ 49,100 crores from over 5.85 crore investors, making it larger in scope than the Sahara scam.
PACL’s modus operandi was to collect upfront payments from small investors in the villages of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for a scheme to ‘develop’ barren agricultural land situated in far-flung States. Investigations revealed that the scheme had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi operation. For one, though they were ostensibly buying land, PACL’s investors had no say either in the location or the development of the plots they bought. Two, plots across different regions were sold for identical prices, on the promise of fabulous returns. Worst of all, PACL did not even own 80 percent of the land that is sold. As these facts came to light, SEBI issued its first cease-and-desist notice to PACL in 1998.
But for the 16 years that followed, PACL adopted various dilatory tactics to stymie the regulator by refusing to comply with directives, failing to appear for hearings, and filing counterclaims in the high court, even as it continued to mobilize new money. Along the way, thanks to the somewhat ambiguous definition of a CIS under the original regulations, it even secured a favorable ruling from the Rajasthan High Court. It is only when this ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court last year that SEBI was able to proceed against PACL in full measure. Thankfully, the definition of a CIS has since been tightened, with any money-pooling involving a corpus of ₹ 100 crores or more, now requiring registration.
In imposing this penalty on PACL, SEBI has used its newly won powers under the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, which specify a fine of up to three times the illegal profits made by perpetrators of fraud. Having imposed this mammoth disgorgement order and penalty though, the critical task ahead for SEBI would be to identify the actual small investors in PACL, so that the monies disgorged can be refunded to them. Little progress on this front has been made in the Sahara case. But a sound mechanism for restitution of lost money is a must-have if victims of financial fraud are to regain their faith in the system.
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com
Which group, according to the author is most vulnerable to be tricked by the fraudulent schemes?
Question 4
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
On the face of it, the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s decision to slap a penalty of ₹ 7,269 crores, its highest ever, on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilizing funds under an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS) may appear harsh. This is in addition to an earlier disgorgement order which directed the firm to refund ₹ 49,100 crores collected from investors. But PACL seems like a fit case for SEBI to levy deterrent penalties, given its long-running crusade against Ponzi operators who target the most vulnerable section of small savers. Over the last couple of years, SEBI has unearthed over 200 money-pooling schemes that hadn’t registered with it, in violation of its CIS regulations. But PACL has been the largest and most blatant repeat offender under this law. The group is estimated to have raised ₹ 49,100 crores from over 5.85 crore investors, making it larger in scope than the Sahara scam.
PACL’s modus operandi was to collect upfront payments from small investors in the villages of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for a scheme to ‘develop’ barren agricultural land situated in far-flung States. Investigations revealed that the scheme had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi operation. For one, though they were ostensibly buying land, PACL’s investors had no say either in the location or the development of the plots they bought. Two, plots across different regions were sold for identical prices, on the promise of fabulous returns. Worst of all, PACL did not even own 80 percent of the land that is sold. As these facts came to light, SEBI issued its first cease-and-desist notice to PACL in 1998.
But for the 16 years that followed, PACL adopted various dilatory tactics to stymie the regulator by refusing to comply with directives, failing to appear for hearings, and filing counterclaims in the high court, even as it continued to mobilize new money. Along the way, thanks to the somewhat ambiguous definition of a CIS under the original regulations, it even secured a favorable ruling from the Rajasthan High Court. It is only when this ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court last year that SEBI was able to proceed against PACL in full measure. Thankfully, the definition of a CIS has since been tightened, with any money-pooling involving a corpus of ₹ 100 crores or more, now requiring registration.
In imposing this penalty on PACL, SEBI has used its newly won powers under the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, which specify a fine of up to three times the illegal profits made by perpetrators of fraud. Having imposed this mammoth disgorgement order and penalty though, the critical task ahead for SEBI would be to identify the actual small investors in PACL, so that the monies disgorged can be refunded to them. Little progress on this front has been made in the Sahara case. But a sound mechanism for restitution of lost money is a must-have if victims of financial fraud are to regain their faith in the system.
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com
On the face of it, the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s decision to slap a penalty of ₹ 7,269 crores, its highest ever, on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilizing funds under an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS) may appear harsh. This is in addition to an earlier disgorgement order which directed the firm to refund ₹ 49,100 crores collected from investors. But PACL seems like a fit case for SEBI to levy deterrent penalties, given its long-running crusade against Ponzi operators who target the most vulnerable section of small savers. Over the last couple of years, SEBI has unearthed over 200 money-pooling schemes that hadn’t registered with it, in violation of its CIS regulations. But PACL has been the largest and most blatant repeat offender under this law. The group is estimated to have raised ₹ 49,100 crores from over 5.85 crore investors, making it larger in scope than the Sahara scam.
PACL’s modus operandi was to collect upfront payments from small investors in the villages of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for a scheme to ‘develop’ barren agricultural land situated in far-flung States. Investigations revealed that the scheme had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi operation. For one, though they were ostensibly buying land, PACL’s investors had no say either in the location or the development of the plots they bought. Two, plots across different regions were sold for identical prices, on the promise of fabulous returns. Worst of all, PACL did not even own 80 percent of the land that is sold. As these facts came to light, SEBI issued its first cease-and-desist notice to PACL in 1998.
But for the 16 years that followed, PACL adopted various dilatory tactics to stymie the regulator by refusing to comply with directives, failing to appear for hearings, and filing counterclaims in the high court, even as it continued to mobilize new money. Along the way, thanks to the somewhat ambiguous definition of a CIS under the original regulations, it even secured a favorable ruling from the Rajasthan High Court. It is only when this ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court last year that SEBI was able to proceed against PACL in full measure. Thankfully, the definition of a CIS has since been tightened, with any money-pooling involving a corpus of ₹ 100 crores or more, now requiring registration.
In imposing this penalty on PACL, SEBI has used its newly won powers under the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, which specify a fine of up to three times the illegal profits made by perpetrators of fraud. Having imposed this mammoth disgorgement order and penalty though, the critical task ahead for SEBI would be to identify the actual small investors in PACL, so that the monies disgorged can be refunded to them. Little progress on this front has been made in the Sahara case. But a sound mechanism for restitution of lost money is a must-have if victims of financial fraud are to regain their faith in the system.
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com
Which of the following is NOT TRUE regarding the PACL's scheme?
(1) Most of the land being sold by PACL was not even owned by it.
(2) The investors had a say in the land being bought.
(3) The scheme took investments from small rural investors.
(1) Most of the land being sold by PACL was not even owned by it.
(2) The investors had a say in the land being bought.
(3) The scheme took investments from small rural investors.
Question 5
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
On the face of it, the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s decision to slap a penalty of ₹ 7,269 crores, its highest ever, on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilizing funds under an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS) may appear harsh. This is in addition to an earlier disgorgement order which directed the firm to refund ₹ 49,100 crores collected from investors. But PACL seems like a fit case for SEBI to levy deterrent penalties, given its long-running crusade against Ponzi operators who target the most vulnerable section of small savers. Over the last couple of years, SEBI has unearthed over 200 money-pooling schemes that hadn’t registered with it, in violation of its CIS regulations. But PACL has been the largest and most blatant repeat offender under this law. The group is estimated to have raised ₹ 49,100 crores from over 5.85 crore investors, making it larger in scope than the Sahara scam.
PACL’s modus operandi was to collect upfront payments from small investors in the villages of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for a scheme to ‘develop’ barren agricultural land situated in far-flung States. Investigations revealed that the scheme had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi operation. For one, though they were ostensibly buying land, PACL’s investors had no say either in the location or the development of the plots they bought. Two, plots across different regions were sold for identical prices, on the promise of fabulous returns. Worst of all, PACL did not even own 80 percent of the land that is sold. As these facts came to light, SEBI issued its first cease-and-desist notice to PACL in 1998.
But for the 16 years that followed, PACL adopted various dilatory tactics to stymie the regulator by refusing to comply with directives, failing to appear for hearings, and filing counterclaims in the high court, even as it continued to mobilize new money. Along the way, thanks to the somewhat ambiguous definition of a CIS under the original regulations, it even secured a favorable ruling from the Rajasthan High Court. It is only when this ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court last year that SEBI was able to proceed against PACL in full measure. Thankfully, the definition of a CIS has since been tightened, with any money-pooling involving a corpus of ₹ 100 crores or more, now requiring registration.
In imposing this penalty on PACL, SEBI has used its newly won powers under the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, which specify a fine of up to three times the illegal profits made by perpetrators of fraud. Having imposed this mammoth disgorgement order and penalty though, the critical task ahead for SEBI would be to identify the actual small investors in PACL, so that the monies disgorged can be refunded to them. Little progress on this front has been made in the Sahara case. But a sound mechanism for restitution of lost money is a must-have if victims of financial fraud are to regain their faith in the system.
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com
On the face of it, the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s decision to slap a penalty of ₹ 7,269 crores, its highest ever, on PACL Ltd and its directors for mobilizing funds under an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS) may appear harsh. This is in addition to an earlier disgorgement order which directed the firm to refund ₹ 49,100 crores collected from investors. But PACL seems like a fit case for SEBI to levy deterrent penalties, given its long-running crusade against Ponzi operators who target the most vulnerable section of small savers. Over the last couple of years, SEBI has unearthed over 200 money-pooling schemes that hadn’t registered with it, in violation of its CIS regulations. But PACL has been the largest and most blatant repeat offender under this law. The group is estimated to have raised ₹ 49,100 crores from over 5.85 crore investors, making it larger in scope than the Sahara scam.
PACL’s modus operandi was to collect upfront payments from small investors in the villages of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh for a scheme to ‘develop’ barren agricultural land situated in far-flung States. Investigations revealed that the scheme had all the hallmarks of a classic Ponzi operation. For one, though they were ostensibly buying land, PACL’s investors had no say either in the location or the development of the plots they bought. Two, plots across different regions were sold for identical prices, on the promise of fabulous returns. Worst of all, PACL did not even own 80 percent of the land that is sold. As these facts came to light, SEBI issued its first cease-and-desist notice to PACL in 1998.
But for the 16 years that followed, PACL adopted various dilatory tactics to stymie the regulator by refusing to comply with directives, failing to appear for hearings, and filing counterclaims in the high court, even as it continued to mobilize new money. Along the way, thanks to the somewhat ambiguous definition of a CIS under the original regulations, it even secured a favorable ruling from the Rajasthan High Court. It is only when this ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court last year that SEBI was able to proceed against PACL in full measure. Thankfully, the definition of a CIS has since been tightened, with any money-pooling involving a corpus of ₹ 100 crores or more, now requiring registration.
In imposing this penalty on PACL, SEBI has used its newly won powers under the Prevention of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations, which specify a fine of up to three times the illegal profits made by perpetrators of fraud. Having imposed this mammoth disgorgement order and penalty though, the critical task ahead for SEBI would be to identify the actual small investors in PACL, so that the monies disgorged can be refunded to them. Little progress on this front has been made in the Sahara case. But a sound mechanism for restitution of lost money is a must-have if victims of financial fraud are to regain their faith in the system.
Source: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com
Which among the following express the OPPOSITE meaning of the word “Dilatory” as given in the passage?
Question 6
Direction: What should come in place of question mark(?) in the following question?
(862 - 446) ÷ 4 = ? × 4
Question 7
Direction: What value should come in place of question mark (?) in the following questions?
20% of 20% of 20% of 2000 = ?
Question 8
Direction: What value should come in place of question mark (?) in the following questions?
?2 + (72+ 21) ÷ 7 = 46
Question 9
Direction: What should come in place of question mark(?) in the following question?
42 × 42 ÷ 
– 22 = ? – 52
– 22 = ? – 52Question 10
Direction: What should come in place of question mark(?) in the following question?
(
)2 = ? 
)2 = ?
Question 11
Direction: Study the information carefully and answer the given questions.
A, C, D, I, L, P and M are sitting in a straight line facing North.
(a) P sits fourth to the right of A and C sits second to the left of P. D sits in the middle and is second to the right of M.
(b) I sits at the farthest possible distance from P (five persons sit between I and P).
A, C, D, I, L, P and M are sitting in a straight line facing North.
(a) P sits fourth to the right of A and C sits second to the left of P. D sits in the middle and is second to the right of M.
(b) I sits at the farthest possible distance from P (five persons sit between I and P).
If all the seven persons are made to sit in alphabetical order from left to right, the positions of how many will remain unchanged as compared to the original seating positions?
Question 12
Direction: Study the information carefully and answer the given questions.
A, C, D, I, L, P and M are sitting in a straight line facing North.
(a) P sits fourth to the right of A and C sits second to the left of P. D sits in the middle and is second to the right of M.
(b) I sits at the farthest possible distance from P (five persons sit between I and P).
A, C, D, I, L, P and M are sitting in a straight line facing North.
(a) P sits fourth to the right of A and C sits second to the left of P. D sits in the middle and is second to the right of M.
(b) I sits at the farthest possible distance from P (five persons sit between I and P).
Four of the following are alike in a certain way based on their seating positions in the above arrangement and so form a group. Which pair does not belong to that group?
Question 13
Direction: Study the information carefully and answer the given questions.
A, C, D, I, L, P and M are sitting in a straight line facing North.
(a) P sits fourth to the right of A and C sits second to the left of P. D sits in the middle and is second to the right of M.
(b) I sits at the farthest possible distance from P (five persons sit between I and P).
A, C, D, I, L, P and M are sitting in a straight line facing North.
(a) P sits fourth to the right of A and C sits second to the left of P. D sits in the middle and is second to the right of M.
(b) I sits at the farthest possible distance from P (five persons sit between I and P).
What is the position of C with respect to M?
Question 14
Direction: Study the information carefully and answer the given questions.
A, C, D, I, L, P and M are sitting in a straight line facing North.
(a) P sits fourth to the right of A and C sits second to the left of P. D sits in the middle and is second to the right of M.
(b) I sits at the farthest possible distance from P (five persons sit between I and P).
A, C, D, I, L, P and M are sitting in a straight line facing North.
(a) P sits fourth to the right of A and C sits second to the left of P. D sits in the middle and is second to the right of M.
(b) I sits at the farthest possible distance from P (five persons sit between I and P).
How many persons sit between A and L ?
Question 15
Direction: Study the information carefully and answer the given questions.
A, C, D, I, L, P and M are sitting in a straight line facing North.
(a) P sits fourth to the right of A and C sits second to the left of P. D sits in the middle and is second to the right of M.
(b) I sits at the farthest possible distance from P (five persons sit between I and P).
A, C, D, I, L, P and M are sitting in a straight line facing North.
(a) P sits fourth to the right of A and C sits second to the left of P. D sits in the middle and is second to the right of M.
(b) I sits at the farthest possible distance from P (five persons sit between I and P).
Which of the following pairs represents the persons sitting at the extreme ends of the line?
- 1074 attempts
- 1 upvote
- 18 comments
Apr 28PO, Clerk, SO, Insurance
