NSEL & FTIL are not the wrongdoers in the crisis.

2. CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
LEGAL FACTS
ROLE OF TRADING CLIENTS
INTEGRITY OF NSEL
LEGITAMACY OF NSEL’S CONTRACTS

3. INTRODUCTION
 There are many updates and follow-ups on
NSEL Crisis.
 So, if you are following the news & keeping a
track of the NSEL Crisis, then here are facts
that demonstrate that NSEL & FTIL are not the
wrongdoers in the crisis.

4. LEGAL FACTS
 Investigating agencies – EOW, CBI and ED haven’t found any
money trail to NSEL or FTIL.
 The same was stated by the Bombay High Court order dated 22
August 2014
 NSEL did not receive the money that was invested. It is brokers &
defaulters who have been benefited by transactions.
 All of the Trading Clients’ funds have been traced to the defaulters.
 NSEL has never paid any dividend to FTIL. All dividends are always
paid from standalone income and as is the case with FTIL.

5. TRADING CLIENTS OF NSEL
 Traded in commodities through their brokers.
 Consciously selected counterparty, paid/received VAT and
have acted as clearing and forwarding agents.
 Brokers of Trading Clients visited warehouses to verify
commodities and found them to be in order on various
occasions.
 Have no privity of contract with NSEL but is with Brokers.

6. TRADING CLIENTS ARE NOT
INVESTORS
 They are entitled to recover dues through legal means
without incorrectly projecting themselves as
“Investors”.
 The exchange did not pay any ‘interest’ to the trading
clients’ brokers, hence the TCs are not “investors”.
 NSEL was simply the means of exchange. Neither did
NSEL’s creditors nor did the Trading Clients invest in
the company’s FDs/Debentures. Hence the two parties
cannot be deemed as investors.

7. INTEGRITY OF NSEL
 Propaganda that NSEL was incorporated to defraud
Trading Clients is with malice, baseless and false.
 NSEL was set up by MCX on invitation of Government
of India (GoI) and not by FTIL as alleged.
 NSEL is a demutualized organization/exchange in
which the ownership & management are totally
separated.
 Exempted under Section 27 of the FC(R) Act was
given by GoI to 3 spot exchanges NMCE, NCDEX and
NSEL.

8. NSEL IS NOT A FRAUD
 NSEL and NCDEX launched contracts beyond 11-day
maturity as the exemption granted was a ‘general
exemption’ under Sec 27 of the FCRA.
 Like other subsidiaries of FTIL, NSEL was also
managed by a well-qualified and experienced Managing
Director and CEO Anjani Sinha and a group of senior
officials having adequate experience in commodities
markets.

9. NSEL IS NOT A FRAUD
 No complaints were made by any of the participants
who were trading on the platform of NSEL
 It is relevant to note that at no point in time were any
instances of alleged fraud were ever brought to the
attention of the Board of Directors of FTIL.
 In an affidavit in Writ Petition 2340/2013, the
Department of Consumers Affairs (DCA) admitted that
it has not determined whether NSEL violated any
conditions.

10. LEGITAMACY OF NSEL’S
CONTRACTS
 Acted as a pass through mechanism.
 Launched “independent” forward contracts
 Did not receive any benefit save and except to
the extent of transaction charges by the
exchange against the transaction.

11. CONCLUSION
 NSEL did not receive the money that was
invested.
 The role of the trading clients is a complete
contrast to the one that was portrayed.
 Propaganda that NSEL was integrated to
defraud Trading Clients is baseless.

12. These are just a few updates, continue following
us for more details about NSEL Crisis.
Thank You