New Delhi, August 14, 2024 The Financial Services Commission (FSC) of Mauritius has issued a strong rebuttal to the allegations made by Hindenburg Research against Madhabi Puri Buch, the Chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The allegations, which have stirred significant controversy, claim that Buch and her husband had undisclosed investments in offshore funds, including those domiciled in Mauritius. The FSC’s response aims to clarify the situation and defend the integrity of Mauritius as a financial jurisdiction.
Background of the Allegations
Hindenburg Research, a well-known US-based short-selling firm, released a report on August 10, 2024, accusing SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch of having secret financial interests in offshore funds. The report specifically mentioned the “IPE Plus Fund” and “IPE Plus Fund ,” alleging that these funds were used to manipulate financial markets and were linked to the Adani Group.
According to Hindenburg, Buch and her husband had transferred their investments into these offshore funds just weeks before her appointment as SEBI Chairperson. The report suggested that this move was intended to avoid scrutiny and potential conflicts of interest related to her new regulatory role.
FSC’s Response
In a detailed statement issued on August 13, 2024, the FSC of Mauritius categorically denied the allegations. The regulator clarified that the funds mentioned in the Hindenburg report are not domiciled in Mauritius and are not licensees of the FSC. The statement emphasized that Mauritius has a robust regulatory framework that does not permit the creation of shell companies.
“The report of Hindenburg has further cited ‘IPE Plus Fund’ as a small offshore Mauritius fund and ‘IPE Plus Fund 1’ as a fund registered in Mauritius. We wish to clarify that IPE Plus Fund and IPE Plus Fund 1 are not licensees of the FSC and are not domiciled in Mauritius,” the FSC stated.
Mauritius’ Regulatory Framework
The FSC highlighted that Mauritius adheres to international best practices and has been rated as compliant with the standards of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The regulator pointed out that all global business companies licensed by the FSC must meet substance requirements on an ongoing basis, as per Section 71 of the Financial Services Act.
“Mauritius has a robust framework for global business companies. All global business companies licensed by the FSC have to meet substance requirements on an ongoing basis as per section 71 of the Financial Services Act, which is strictly monitored by the FSC,” the statement read.
The FSC also addressed the characterization of Mauritius as a “tax haven,” asserting that the island nation is a well-regulated, transparent, and compliant jurisdiction. “As per the peer review conducted by the OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices, the OECD is satisfied that Mauritius does not have any harmful features in its tax regimes, thus recognizing Mauritius as a well-regulated, transparent, and compliant jurisdiction. Therefore, Mauritius cannot be termed as a tax haven,” the FSC added.
Implications of the Allegations
- Impact on SEBI: The allegations against Madhabi Puri Buch have put SEBI under intense scrutiny. As the chief regulator of India’s securities market, SEBI’s credibility is crucial for maintaining investor confidence. The FSC’s rebuttal may help mitigate some of the damage, but the allegations have already raised questions about the integrity of the regulatory body.
- Political Repercussions: The controversy has also taken on a political dimension, with opposition parties calling for a thorough investigation into the matter. The allegations have provided ammunition for critics of the current administration, who argue that regulatory bodies are being compromised for political and financial gains.
- Market Reactions: The stock markets have reacted to the controversy with increased volatility. Shares of companies linked to the Adani Group, which were mentioned in the Hindenburg report, have experienced significant fluctuations. Investors are closely watching the developments to gauge their potential impact on the broader market.
- International Relations: The FSC’s response underscores the importance of maintaining Mauritius’ reputation as a credible financial jurisdiction. The allegations have the potential to strain relations between India and Mauritius, especially if they are perceived as an attack on the integrity of Mauritius’ financial regulatory framework.
Broader Context
The Hindenburg report is part of a broader trend of increased scrutiny of offshore financial activities and the use of tax havens. In recent years, there has been a global push for greater transparency and accountability in financial transactions, particularly those involving high-profile individuals and large corporations.
The allegations against Madhabi Puri Buch also highlight the challenges faced by regulators in maintaining their independence and integrity. As the head of SEBI, Buch is responsible for overseeing India’s securities market and ensuring that it operates in a fair and transparent manner. The controversy has raised questions about the potential conflicts of interest that can arise when regulators have personal financial interests in the entities they oversee.
Conclusion
The FSC’s strong rebuttal to the Hindenburg Research allegations is an important step in defending the integrity of Mauritius as a financial jurisdiction. However, the controversy is far from over. The allegations against SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch have raised serious questions about the transparency and accountability of India’s regulatory bodies.
As the investigation continues, it is crucial for all parties involved to ensure that the process is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the credibility of SEBI, the reputation of Mauritius, and the broader efforts to promote transparency and accountability in global financial markets.
For More News Update, Follow Read Now News
Nikhil Malhotra 
