ED Enables Refund for Two Victims of Shine City Infra P rojects
Real Estate

ED Enables Refund for Two Victims of Shine City Infra P rojects

In a landmark move, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) facilitated the restitution of funds for two victims of the Shine City Infra Projects fraud, marking a pivotal moment in the on-going investigation into the real estate scam.

The Special Court, under the direction of Judge Rahul Prakash, instructed the ED to refund Rs 7.61 lakh to Husna Bano and Rs 4 lakh to Neeta Verma, both victims of the scheme.

According to ED sources, around 1,800 claims have been submitted by victims across Uttar Pradesh who were affected by the Shine City fraud. These applications are undergoing meticulous verification and will be presented to the court for final approval.

The fraud came to light when victims filed petitions under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), highlighting how they had invested substantial amounts in Shine City property schemes but were ultimately defrauded. Following a series of court rulings, including an Allahabad High Court order, the ED sought the Special Court in Lucknow's approval under Section 8(8) of the PMLA to restore properties attached or seized by the agency to the victims. Responding to this appeal, the court issued a public notice urging other victims to submit their claims and validate their investments for potential recovery.

Husna Bano, one of the victims, had invested Rs 10.02 lakh in a Shine City property scheme but only received Rs 2.40 lakh as a refund earlier. On Thursday, the remaining Rs 7.61 lakh was returned to her. However, her request for interest on the amount was denied by the court, which upheld the ED's argument that the PMLA does not permit the payment of interest on refunded sums.

Similarly, Neeta Verma, another victim, had invested Rs 5.65 lakh in the scheme and initially received no refund. After the ED verified her bank statements and receipts confirming a Rs 4 lakh transfer to Shine City's account, the court recognised her as a legitimate investor and ordered the return of her principal amount. Her appeal for 18 per cent interest on the refund was also rejected.

The ED's investigation into Shine City Group was triggered by nearly 554 FIRs filed by the Uttar Pradesh Police against Rasheed Naseem and other associates of the company. The fraud involved Ponzi-like pyramid schemes disguised as real estate investments. Funds collected from investors were layered and used to acquire assets under the names of Shine City companies, its directors, and associates, leaving investors without the promised returns or properties.

In a landmark move, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) facilitated the restitution of funds for two victims of the Shine City Infra Projects fraud, marking a pivotal moment in the on-going investigation into the real estate scam. The Special Court, under the direction of Judge Rahul Prakash, instructed the ED to refund Rs 7.61 lakh to Husna Bano and Rs 4 lakh to Neeta Verma, both victims of the scheme. According to ED sources, around 1,800 claims have been submitted by victims across Uttar Pradesh who were affected by the Shine City fraud. These applications are undergoing meticulous verification and will be presented to the court for final approval. The fraud came to light when victims filed petitions under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), highlighting how they had invested substantial amounts in Shine City property schemes but were ultimately defrauded. Following a series of court rulings, including an Allahabad High Court order, the ED sought the Special Court in Lucknow's approval under Section 8(8) of the PMLA to restore properties attached or seized by the agency to the victims. Responding to this appeal, the court issued a public notice urging other victims to submit their claims and validate their investments for potential recovery. Husna Bano, one of the victims, had invested Rs 10.02 lakh in a Shine City property scheme but only received Rs 2.40 lakh as a refund earlier. On Thursday, the remaining Rs 7.61 lakh was returned to her. However, her request for interest on the amount was denied by the court, which upheld the ED's argument that the PMLA does not permit the payment of interest on refunded sums. Similarly, Neeta Verma, another victim, had invested Rs 5.65 lakh in the scheme and initially received no refund. After the ED verified her bank statements and receipts confirming a Rs 4 lakh transfer to Shine City's account, the court recognised her as a legitimate investor and ordered the return of her principal amount. Her appeal for 18 per cent interest on the refund was also rejected. The ED's investigation into Shine City Group was triggered by nearly 554 FIRs filed by the Uttar Pradesh Police against Rasheed Naseem and other associates of the company. The fraud involved Ponzi-like pyramid schemes disguised as real estate investments. Funds collected from investors were layered and used to acquire assets under the names of Shine City companies, its directors, and associates, leaving investors without the promised returns or properties.

Next Story
Equipment

Handling concrete better

Efficiently handling the transportation and placement of concrete is essential to help maintain the quality of construction, meet project timelines by minimising downtimes, and reduce costs – by 5 to 15 per cent, according to Sandeep Jain, Director, Arkade Developers. CW explores what the efficient handling of concrete entails.Select wellFirst, a word on choosing the right equipment, such as a mixer with a capacity aligned to the volume required onsite, from Vaibhav Kulkarni, Concrete Expert. “An overly large mixer will increase the idle time (and cost), while one that ..

Next Story
Real Estate

Elevated floors!

Raised access flooring, also called false flooring, is a less common interiors feature than false ceilings, but it has as many uses – if not more.A raised floor is a modular panel installed above the structural floor. The space beneath the raised flooring is typically used to accommodate utilities such as electrical cables, plumbing and HVAC systems. And so, raised flooring is usually associated with buildings with heavy cabling and precise air distribution needs, such as data centres.That said, CW interacted with designers and architects and discovered that false flooring can come in handy ..

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

The Variation Challenge

A variation or change in scope clause is defined in construction contracts to take care of situations arising from change in the defined scope of work. Such changes may arise due to factors such as additions or deletions in the scope of work, modifications in the type, grade or specifications of materials, alterations in specifications or drawings, and acts or omissions of other contractors. Further, ineffective planning, inadequate investigations or surveys and requests from the employer or those within the project’s area of influence can contribute to changes in the scope of work. Ext..

Advertisement

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Talk to us?