Talk:NSEL case

Untitled

Thank you AnomieBOT for updating important information with relevant citations. --Michaeltibbs (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Seasoned editors please guide how to improve the page Nimrodindia (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No one interested in Editing this page?? Nimrodindia (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is a mess. Someone please rewrite this to reflect an encyclopedic article instead of a running commentary. 122.166.156.246 (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandals please keep away as the changes will be immediately reverted back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimrodindia (talk • contribs) 08:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Rampant vandalizing by NSEL -FTIl guys. please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urshah (talk • contribs) 11:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This page has no structure. Lots of irrelevant information need to be cleaned up.--Michaeltibbs (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Editors please keep page neutrality on mind. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmar (talk • contribs) 07:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

There are several information on the page which are completely vague and have no evidence to support them whatsoever. This does not seem to be in the favor of the neutrality policy of Wikipedia and seems like a complete violation.

Deathmar stop being a vandal. The content is built over 2 years not to be redirected to a 3 line page. Urshah (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the purpose of a new page just to discuss something that happened to the company? Why can't it be a subhead on the original page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmar (talk • contribs) 13:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

NSEL as an exchange is defunct and the scam page is important now. Don't bring your hidden agenda Urshah (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

NSEL page talks about the same. Merging the two would make sense. Agree with Urshah that it needs to be populated further Johnsonwatts (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Check my latest edits. The article is heavily biased and needs clean-up. Refer WP:Vandalism and WP:POV Adamtheroux (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Made a few more edits. Most of the citations are outdated and the case has moved to an entirely different direction. Biased viewpoints are supported by scans on scribd which are not worthy of citations. The page still needs a lot of edits to neutralize the tone as per Wikipedia guidelines. Adamtheroux (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A few of scam masterminds agents are active on this page. Forcibly tried to redierct the scam page to NSEL (national Spot exchange ltd) page which is wrong as the exchange is non operational and it is scam that is being dealt with. Indianmatador (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Few imposters are trying to leverage NSEL scam to their advantage. Please refer WP:NPOV WP:MERGE WP:UNDUE to understand the page must be aligned as is National Spot Exchange Deathmar (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The exchange is dead, the scam is alive. Hope people get this straight dope. Indianmatador (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The article lacks balance and seems non-neutral. If you go into the details of the case, there's enough evidence that there cannot be one established viewpoint. Hence to blame any individual/ entity / organisation seems far fetched and possibly against WP: Vandalism For ex: there has been fresh evidence found that suggests black money being pumped in by NSEL brokers (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/nsel-scam-suspicion-mounts-on-brokers-routing-black-money/articleshow/51764899.cms) but that is nowhere been mentioned. This needs effective clean up and updating. Neutral viewpoints welcome. Johnsonwatts (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge with NSELJohnsonwatts (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This article cannot be merged with NSEL as the exchange has gone belly up and the scam case lingers on. It's very clear Johnsonwatts is working for scamsters. Indianmatador (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a section on NSEL brokers, any news on brokers must be put there rather than vandalizing the page 08:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianmatador (talk • contribs)

Edits of 18 April 2016 clearly prove Jignesh Shah's men are vandalizing this page. Neutrality warning to be removed unless there is a discussion here. Indianmatador (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a talk page Indianmatador, stop accusing editors and indulge in healthy discussions. The bias in this article is clear, instead of supporting the clean-up, you're interfering in the process. Request you to contribute towards Wikipedia neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmar (talk • contribs) 05:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I second Deathmar. There are a few biased statements which are supported through self-published sources or news from 2-3 years ago. This article needs clean-up and probably deserves expert attention. Jennirich (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

All these editors Deathmar and Jennirich were just born to vandalize this page. (perhaps one person with multiple IDs) Clear Bias and hidden agenda of protecting scammers. Nimrodindia (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Those who have not contributed at all in building this page have hidden agenda and keep reverting the page to suit their needs Urshah (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nimrodindia and Urshah : All the edits have been made under Wikipedia guidelines and in fact you've been trying to revert the page back to its biased form. If you keep doing that, the page will be deleted under WP:POV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamtheroux (talk • contribs) 05:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Fake IDs trying to put the page into conflict. Kindly refrain. Jennirich (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

People like Jennirich Adamtheroux Deathmar (all same person) with agenda have been unleashed on this page. Obviously trying to save the scammers. CMshah (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Jennirich was born only a day back solely to vandalize this page. I've built it over last 2 years Nimrodindia (talk) 05:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Whoever feels the edits are unjust, please cite your reasons here on the talk page and don't indulge in conflict war. It will only result in the page being flagged. Nimrodindia, Urshah, CMshah and Indianmatador — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennirich (talk • contribs) 06:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree - this page is a mess and needs to be reorganized

I agree that the page is a mess. I suggest that this page be organized in the same manner as other financial fraud pages on Wikipedia. My suggestions - follow the format used in the following wikis :

• Bernie Madoff
• Ponzi scheme / Charles Ponzi
• Enron scandal (Though I personally find this page also messy. I prefer the above two)
• Anubhav Plantations scam
• Harshad Mehta Scam

Sugegsted layout of revamped wiki - - Brief introduction - History and formation - Modus Operandi - Scam revealed and investigations - Resulting controversies and allegations - aftermath I think most of the current material will fall under "Modus operandi - Scam revealed and investigations" with a bit such as the mention of Sucheta Dalal falling under controversies (we do need a more credible citation for this - writing a letter is sufficient to suggest awareness but it does not suggest involvement . She may have written a later stating that they feel something is wrong and asking for more information - as their organization does in a large number of cases. (Example of the above fallacy: I know Sharad Pawar is corrupt. I may write a letter to him stating my suspicions. That does not mean I am involved in his corruption or his 1001 shell companies!)

I also feel that the article should have objective - hence any less credible citations should be avoided (blogs with other agendas) and if two different publications offer two different perspectives (thanks to the large scale prevalence of paid advertising / news in Indian newspapers), both should be offered, leaving readers to make their decisions. Any court judgements / statements / press releases by government bodies and courts however should be presented as they are. Notthebestusername (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Copied material

Just ran a copyvio check and found some noticeable material that is copied word-for-word from other sources. The link should give a good breakdown of the identified material. Anyone wishing to cleanup this article can add this to the bucketlist. Jolly Ω Janner 08:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Trying to clean up word-for-word copies. Nimrodindia (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 April 2016

For admin information:

This page needs the following edits:

• It needs the tag that self-published sources have been used as citations (Scanned documents on Scribd)
• The tonality of the page is disputed -- For example under one paragraph it is written that Jignesh Shah was the 'mastermind' of the scam, whereas there is not proof of that and going through the sources I've discovered that he was bailed on the basis of lack of proof.
• Again under the subhead -- Jignesh Shah's Arrest/ Involvement in the scam -- the tonality is debatable and the subhead should simply be -- Allegations on Jignesh Shah --
• Went through the links about PwC report on this issue and its content and intent have been rendered questionable and I think this should be included in the text.
• All these points are backed by citations and are factual. Yet, other admins have been deliberately trying to hide this fact and therefore I think they are personally targeting Jignesh Shah for some reason, even though his involvement in the case was never proven.
• Other editors are spreading propaganda through this page and targeting individuals using biased tone and aggressive disruptive editing which is basically against the Wikipedia policy.
• This is a neutral platform that deserves unbiased information and request all admins to help in the clean-up of this page. Adamtheroux (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Now the article is protected I can't make any changes unless there is agreement among editors. Please seek consensus on these issues before reactivating the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Jignesh Shah has been arrested, Chargesheeted by Mumbai police. Held not 'fit and proper' by Forward markets Commission. The Government of India has filed a company law board petition to throw out Jignesh Shah's board from FTIL but still Adamtheroux thinks there are only 'allegations' on Jignesh Shah. He is clearly on payroll of Jignesh Shah. CMshah (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

To call Adamtherouxand his other 3-4 Avatars as 'editors' is a joke. All IDs were created just to edit NSEL scam page to suit their needs. I'm the one who has built this page since 2 years. Some points-

• Scribd citations can be certainly used as they provide a copy of the original document.
• Tonality: Has been explained above by CMshah. Jignesh Shah has been chargesheeted by Mumbai police. held unfit and improper by commodity market regulator. Bail is a right in India and does not absolve you of the offence.
• This is a neutral platform . Sure it is check edits of [[User:Adamtheroux|Adamtheroux] Jennirich Deathmarand it will prove they are trying to make this platform anything but neutral.
• Any disputed data can be discussed here and we can reach a consensus if it deserves to be there.

Thanks Nimrodindia (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I have taken a closer look at the edit history of the article and blocked a few of the edit warriors. Hopefully there will be a calmer atmosphere when protection expires. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A big shout out to you buddy (MSGJ for finally seeing the real issue. These edit warriors however may mutate into new IDs. Anyway thanks for all the hard work. Cheers. Nimrodindia (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Template about merger with NSEL page needs to be removed.

Those editors (or edit warriors let loose by scammers) need to either debate/justify this or this template will be removed Nimrodindia (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreasonable Editing

This is in relation to the reversal of my edits made by nimrodindia on 12th June 2017. The edits executed were without any specific reason and explanation leading to vandalism. I see he has removed nearly 19 references from the exiting article which were contributed over a course of time by multiple users including myself. I have spent nearly 1 year in researching about the case and almost a most in making these insightful edits with relevant citations. Infact, there are many sentences and paragraphs in the edited version which do not even have a single citation which violates verifiablity. According to my research the edited page now makes the case one-sided and biased towards a specific group of people. Below is the detailed explanation (section wise) of the edits made by myself and other respected editors on the page

Introduction: 1. NSEL was not a Ponzi scheme and was a spot exchange regulated by the Forward Markets Commission. 2. NSEL did not fail to pay its investors. On the contrary, NSEL has settled the claims of most of the trading clients.

Background: 1. NSEL trades were not illegal. NSEL was granted exemption under section 27 of Forward Contracts Regulations Act (FCRA) 2. Pair contract is the brainchild of intermediaries in order to lure the trading clients for enhancing their brokerage revenue. NSEL warned these members about selling contracts as pair contracts to their trading clients and cautioned them not to offer any assured returns. NSEL had issued circulars to its members, refraining from offering any such contracts by offering assured returns. 3. The brokers mis-sold NSEL products to their clients by assuring them fixed returns. The defaulters hypothecated stocks and produced fake warehouse receipts and siphoned the entire default money. 4. Anjani Sinha, the sacked CEO and the MD of the company, owned up the entire responsibility of the crisis in his first affidavit. However, Anjani Sinha after arrest retracted his earlier affidavit. Subsequently, after his release, Sinha admitted to the contents of his first affidavit in his statement to the Enforcement Directorate.

History: 1. NSEL was set up following the then Prime Minister’s vision for a national level spot market for both manufacturing and agricultural produce. 2. FMC was appointed the regulator in August 2011 and not 2012.

Jignesh Shah's arrest by EOW Mumbai/involvement in the scam 1. The section only talks about the first arrest of Jignesh Shah. Shah was released on bail on Aug 22, 2014 by the Bombay High Court stating that no money trail in NSEL case has been established to Jignesh Shah, NSEL or FTIL. The entire default amount has gone to defaulters.

Role of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, FMC & the UPA Government 1. Ministry of Consumer Affairs issued a show cause notice on April 27, 2012 to NSEL based on the flawed recommendations of the FMC. NSEL replied to the notice promptly. For more than year, the DCA was silent and on July 12, 2013 it ordered NSEL to stop launching fresh contracts and to settle all existing contracts on due dates. The same FMC did a complete U-turn and on July 19, 2013 said that the exemption was silent on whether the exemption is applicable to all or specific provision of FCR Act. On July 31, 2013, NSEL was abruptly asked to shut down leading to the payment crisis. 2. While another spot commodity exchange, NCDEX Spot Exchange continued to function without a hitch

Looking at the history, nimrodindia had been suggested once by trueshes on 8th February 2016. Request you to follow wiki guidelines while contributing to Wikipedia and discuss on the talk page before making any edits on topics which need better understanding. You can refer to http://www.indialegallive.com/news-of-the-day/lead/the-final-blow-came-7133 and http://www.indialegallive.com/news-of-the-day/lead/indias-icarus-7123 to understand this case better before further contributing on the page. Request the other admins to intervene & take necessary action to avoid future vandalism attempts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeltibbs (talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Unreasonable Editing by Michaeltibbs

There is distinct attempt to vandalize this page and shift the focus from actual fraudsters. Some points-

• Jignesh Shah in the same bail order of Mumbai HC accused of probable recipient of Hawala money of NSEL
• NSEL trades if illegal why were they stopped by Forward Market Commission and why was Jignesh Shah held not 'fit and proper'
• NSEL was a Ponzi scheme and hence MPID act was upheld by Mumbai High Court
• Enforcement directorate has also arrested Jignesh Shah on money laundering and he is only out op bail

(CMshah (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

CMshah Here's why your claims can't be accepted:

• Jignesh Shah in the same bail order of Mumbai HC accused of probable recipient of Hawala money of NSEL

 Response:  No money trail ever established against any individual or entity. http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-enforcement-directorate-fails-to-trace-money-trail-in-rs-5400-crore-nsel-scam-2075330

• NSEL was a Ponzi scheme and hence MPID act was upheld by Mumbai High Court -

 Factually Incorrect - here's why: http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/nsel-scam-sebi-readies-action-against-brokers-sees-no-ponzi/544679/

• NSEL trades if illegal why were they stopped by Forward Market Commission and why was Jignesh Shah held not 'fit and proper'-

 Redundant- Trades were legal as the Exchange was granted exemption on June 5, 2007 by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (DCA) under Section 27 of Forward Contracts Regulations Act (FCRA). http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-nsel-did-forward-markets-commission-s-action-spook-the-market-2059598 http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/g-chandrashekhar/keep-spot-exchanges-in-the-spotlight/article5012876.ece

Avoid half-baked information and please help with keeping the page updated. I am trying to updated with latest citations. You seem to be simply interested in creating noise. Is that why you were blocked out earlier too in relation to Vandalism on NSEL case. Please resort to responsible editing.

 Michaeltibbs (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Ban Anrdshr for fraud edits

A lot of vandalizing by Anrdshr who is clearly acting for NSEL scam masterminds. Needs to be banned ASAP. (Urshah (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC))

Fraud edits like On the flawed recommendations of the FMC, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs ordered NSEL to settle all existing contracts and not launch any fresh contracts, which led to the crisis. cannot be allowed. NSEL fraud happened because there was no stock and trades happened only on paper. Anrdshr needs to be banned for vandalising this page which is created and beefed up with content by me. Nimrodindia (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Vandalizing byMichaeltibbs

This person is reverting meaningful content addition and is peddling NSEL fraudster's version on Wikipedia. Needs to be banned immediately. (CMshah (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC))

Continuous sabotage by Michaeltibbs in spite of warnings. Clearly he is Jignesh Shah's man.

(CMshah (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC))

The vandal Michaeltibbs is at it again. Must be banned for life Nimrodindia (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

—Preceding undated comment added 12:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC) 

Fully protected

I have fully protected this article for 1 week due to a persistent edit war/content dispute - please make the use of edit requests to propose and gain consensus on the changes you wish to make -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Requesting a specific change

There'sNoTime Request you to consider the following edits in the first paragraph of the page:

The NSEL (National spot Exchange Ltd) scam or NSEL fraud is a systematic and premeditated fraud perpetrated in the commodity market on Jignesh Shah owned National Spot Exchange (NSEL) which is based in Mumbai, India.[1] The NSEL is a company promoted by Financial Technologies India Ltd and the NAFED (only 100 shares given for misusing the NAFED brand who was touted as a co-promoter). The NSEL scam was a Ponzi scheme and is estimated to be a Rs. 5600 crore (around US$0.95 billion) fraud that came out to light after the National Spot Exchange failed to pay its investors in commodity pair contracts after 31 July 2013.[2] 13000 investors from India lost about Indian Rupees 5600 Crores when the fraud was discovered and it was found that NSEL had neither the money nor the stocks to pay them back.

Reasons:

• Citation 1 - The source is a feature article (http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-shah-of-fraud/287699)
• Citation 2 - YT link is not working and it is proved that this was not a Ponzi scheme. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVVxA3rr99I)
• Language - Tone of the content is not impartial and not in line with article of public interest or WP:NPOV
• Since the case is still under investigation, it is very important to mention this in the introduction.

My proposed changes are:

NSEL case or NSEL scam relates to a payment default at the National Spot Exchange that occurred in 2013. The case is under investigation with the spotlight on the involvement of brokers, defaulters, investors and key decision makers. NSEL was promoted by Financial Technologies India Ltd. The payment default took place when the then commodities market regulator, the Forward Markets Commission (FMC) directed NSEL to stop launching any fresh contracts leading to an abrupt closure of the Exchange in July 2013.

Reasons:

• Citations are neutral press/news sources.
• Context is informative and encyclopaedic.
• Lays the foundation for a stronger content narrative/section/sub-sections etc.

@There'sNoTime: Thanks for your inputs. I am trying to update the page with more neutral tone /citations and removing old/bad links. May need 2 to 3 days though. Nimrodindia (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

All editors please share your neutral opinions. MichaelTibbs Chints247 Vaibhav2210 Anrdshr (talk) 07:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Anrdshr From overall NPOV perspective this page needs to be reviewed. It should begin somewhere, maybe with this edit. Michaeltibbs (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Anrdshr MichaelTibbs This is not only true for this paragraph. I feel a lot of sections on the page have similar issues and lack verifiable accuracy. Vaibhav2210 (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

References

 Administrator note I'm not sure if the above discussion reflects a consensus for the proposed change, but will revisit in a day to see if the change can be made. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have recently started studying on the topic! From what I understand from my research, the talk page discussion and the existing arricle, there are many important facts which has to be mentioned on the page to neutralise the article. Some of the citations shared by anrdshrl would add value to the overall case. Should surely be given a thought by the admins. Would love to contribute once the page is opened for editing again Chintan 05:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chints247 (talk • contribs)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 15:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Real Vandals

Around 80% of this page content has been added by me over last 2-1/2 years with assiduous efforts. There are some Johnny-come-lately vandals who are on the payroll of fraudsters and they need to be banned. Nimrodindia (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nimrodindia: Could you list who you believe are vandals who are on the payroll of fraudsters? -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have found Anrdshr to be the biggest vandal, aided by Michaeltibbs both seem paid by the perpetrators of this billion $ fraud .Nimrodindia (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Creating a page cannot ever rationalize tainting and accusing other editors simply because they have a POV. In fact User:Nimrodindia has already been warned of malicious editing, while User:CMshah was even blocked out for non-appropriate editing. Anrdshr (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, fully protected

I'm not impressed with what's going on here - sort the issues out in a civil way, get consensus for changes and then make an edit request. I don't endorse the version of the page I've protected, but I won't be changing it unless edit requests are made. Editors are reminded to seek dispute resolution -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There'sNoTime I invite editors who think our mutual POVs are creating a conflict of interest to please objectively debate and settle on a consensus. I will be happy to stand corrected or make this page of public interest as close as possible a true reflection of facts and developments. I have a line of reasoning that I am willing to depose. Appreciate other editors join in too. Anrdshr (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Nimrodindia CMshah Michaeltibbs Request you to assist building consensus for the page. Thank you Anrdshr (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting again Nimrodindia CMshah Michaeltibbs There'sNoTime please lay down your reasoning towards a consensus. Anrdshr (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

PLs lay down your arguments Nimrodindia CMshah Michaeltibbs so we can move towards a resolution. There'sNoTimeAnrdshr (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anrdshr: As the admin who protected the page, it would be improper of me to take part in any discussion which would influence a consensus. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 06:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Inviting all stakeholders again in reaching a consensus on this page. Nimrodindia CMshah Michaeltibbs Chints247Anrdshr (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request - Introduction

There'sNoTime Request you the consider the following edit request for the first paragraph of the page.

The NSEL (National spot Exchange Ltd) scam or NSEL fraud is a systematic and premeditated fraud perpetrated in the commodity market on Jignesh Shah owned National Spot Exchange (NSEL) which is based in Mumbai, India.[1] The NSEL is a company promoted by Financial Technologies India Ltd and the NAFED (only 100 shares given for misusing the NAFED brand who was touted as a co-promoter). The NSEL scam was a Ponzi scheme and is estimated to be a Rs. 5600 crore (around US$0.95 billion) fraud that came out to light after the National Spot Exchange failed to pay its investors in commodity pair contracts after 31 July 2013.[2] 13000 investors from India lost about Indian Rupees 5600 Crores when the fraud was discovered and it was found that NSEL had neither the money nor the stocks to pay them back.

Here are my reasons as to why this should be edited:

• Citation 1 - The source is a feature article (http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-shah-of-fraud/287699)
• Citation 2 - YT link is not working and it is proved that this was not a Ponzi scheme. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVVxA3rr99I)
• Language - Tone of the content is not impartial and not in line with article of public interest or WP:NPOV
• Since the case is still under investigation, it is very important to mention this in the introduction.

I suggest the first paragraph be revised to the following:

NSEL case or NSEL scam relates to a payment default at the National Spot Exchange that occurred in 2013. The case is under investigation with the spotlight on the involvement of brokers,  defaulters,  investors  and key decision makers.  NSEL was promoted by Financial Technologies India Ltd. The payment default took place when the then commodities market regulator, the Forward Markets Commission (FMC) directed NSEL to stop launching any fresh contracts leading to an abrupt closure of the Exchange in July 2013.

References

Here are my reasons:

• Citations used are from neutral press/news sources.
• Context is informative and encyclopaedic.
• Lays the foundation for a stronger content narrative/section/sub-sections etc.

I also request all editors to take part, as I see no efforts being made towards building consensus. Nimrodindia CMshah Michaeltibbs

Thank you

Anrdshr (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Anrdshr Nimrodindia CMshah My opinion is the page is not a fair representation of facts and at places seems skewed. Specifically, about this edit request, I believe it puts out a more accurate and fair picture of the case which is still sub-judice. Therefore, it's unfair to have content prejudiced or misleading in any way. The first paragraph, for example, sounds more like an allegation. Whereas, it should be factual. Inviting all others to join in. Thank you Michaeltibbs (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: It would be helpful if other editors could respond specifically to Anrdshr's proposals so that consensus can be gauged. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Request disabled pending discussion and consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Nimrodindia CMshah  Chints247 Let's work towards a consensus per the suggestion by MSGJ. Pls respond with your opinions on my points above. Thanks Anrdshr (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There'sNoTime MSGJ The page has been reverted by CMshah without reaching neutral consensus after repeated reminders on the edit request. I will be going ahead and reverting changes made by CMshah and request all editors to come to a neutral consensus before making further changes to avoid edit warring. Nimrodindia Anrdshr Chints247 Thank you Michaeltibbs (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus

There'sNoTime MSGJ I’ve been repeatedly requesting all editors to build consensus on the page to come to a neutral conclusion. As for the edits made by Nimrodindia CMshah :

• No specific reason was mentioned against the edits/reversal which clearly leads to abuse of the account and vandalism.

• Post the edit/reversal, around 19 references have been removed by the user which itself is around 33% of the references before the edit. In fact, there are many uncited statements which are in direct violation of Wiki verifiability protocol.

• The edits show a bias towards certain stakeholders and strong prejudice against Jignesh Shah/NSEL case.

• The information is not up to date with latest developments.

Please find below a detailed explanation (section-wise) of the edits made by me and other respected editors on the page with citations and in-line reasoning:

Introduction

NSEL was not a Ponzi scheme and was a spot exchange regulated by the Forward Markets Commission.

NSEL did not fail to pay its investors. On the contrary, NSEL has settled the claims of most of the trading clients.

Background

NSEL trades were not illegal. NSEL was granted exemption under section 27 of Forward Contracts Regulations Act (FCRA)

Pair contract is the brainchild of intermediaries in order to lure the trading clients for enhancing their brokerage revenue. NSEL warned these members about selling contracts as pair contracts to their trading clients and cautioned them not to offer any assured returns. NSEL had issued circulars to its members, refraining from offering any such contracts by offering assured returns.

The brokers mis-sold NSEL products to their clients by assuring them fixed returns. The defaulters hypothecated stocks and produced fake warehouse receipts and siphoned the entire default money.

Anjani Sinha, the sacked CEO and the MD of the company, owned up the entire responsibility of the crisis in his first affidavit. However, Anjani Sinha after arrest retracted his earlier affidavit. Subsequently, after his release, Sinha admitted to the contents of his first affidavit in his statement to the Enforcement Directorate.

History

NSEL was set up following the then Prime Minister’s vision for a national level spot market for both manufacturing and agricultural produce. FMC was appointed the regulator in August 2011 and not 2012.

Jignesh Shah's arrest by EOW Mumbai/involvement in the scam

The section only talks about the first arrest of Jignesh Shah. Shah was released on bail on Aug 22, 2014 by the Bombay High Court stating that no money trail in NSEL case has been established to Jignesh Shah, NSEL or FTIL. The entire default amount has gone to defaulters.

Role of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, FMC & the UPA Government

Ministry of Consumer Affairs issued a show cause notice on April 27, 2012 to NSEL based on the flawed recommendations of the FMC. NSEL replied to the notice promptly. For more than year, the DCA was silent and on July 12, 2013 it ordered NSEL to stop launching fresh contracts and to settle all existing contracts on due dates. The same FMC did a complete U-turn and on July 19, 2013 said that the exemption was silent on whether the exemption is applicable to all or specific provision of FCR Act. On July 31, 2013, NSEL was abruptly asked to shut down leading to the payment crisis. While another spot commodity exchange, NCDEX Spot Exchange continued to function without a hitch.

Request all editors to comment towards building consensus and come to a neutral conclusion before reverting changes or indulging in another edit war. Nimrodindia CMshah Anrdshr Chints247 Thank you Michaeltibbs (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I had been tagged multiple times on certain mentions. Took a while in responding since I am still getting to know this case. From what I understand of my reading in the past days and looking at the edits of CMshah (Editor 1) and Michaeltibbs (Editor 2), there is merit in edits by both these users. Having said this, the edits made by Michaeltibbs are backed by some references which is ideally one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. I havent been able to look at all the edits. Considering the last 2 edits by each user for my comments

Introduction

• NSEL definitely was not a ponzi scheme

Background

• The content provided (by editor 1) here is too much for a user to read in the context of the page and section topics. While the content provided (by editor 2) is to the point and justifies the background of the case/crisis

History

• Again the content suggested by editor 1 is suited for the National Spot Exchange page and not this page since this page talks about the case and not the company

Jignesh Shah's arrest by EOW Mumbai/involvement in the scam

• Editor 1 has provided too much content as against the references. While editor 2 has tweeked the content by has justified this with relevant citations.

Request other editors/admins to contribute and come to a final consensus Chints247 09:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have previously edited a few times on the ‘NSEL case’ page since I found a few irregularities with the citations. Some of the links were misleading and the content on the page didn’t match the articles it used for reference, thereby defeating the purpose of neutrality. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Introduction posted by a couple of users claimed the involved person guilty while the case is still in judicial process . Moreover, there seems to be a conflict on the subject of payment defaults, and it seems that NSEL has worked on settling the claims in the matter with its clients and neither was its operations illegal . It hasn’t been proved that it was a fabricated scam, in any case. I would very much like to consider various opinions and come to a common consensus and put an end to these edit wars. With this, I will be happy to contribute further and request all editors/admins to join in and look into the matter. Thank you Anrdshr (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Hello, Yashovardhan Dhanania. The consensus building exercise has been relatively dormant on the page. Request you to please go through and suggest a way forward. Thank you. Michaeltibbs (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Scamsters Hijacking this page

Continuous vandalizing by Jignesh Shah's men on this page. One sided references given. For example here is the link that NSEL was running a ponzi scheme Nimrodindia (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Nimrodindia, I request you to resolve the matter in a civil manner. False allegations can only hinder the process and unnecessary edit wars lead nowhere. If you notice, the link you’ve cited is from 2013. Since then, there has been a development in the case and, as of 2017, there is no ponzi angle. Here’s an updated citation to prove the same:

CMshah and Nimrodindia are consistently reversing my edits with outdated citation links. All I’m doing is making the page up-to-date with information that is non-biased, in other words, neutral with proper reasoning and up-to-date citations. Admins & editors, I urge you to kindly resolve this matter. There'sNoTime, MSGJ , Chints247, Anrdshr Thank you Michaeltibbs (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Edits without proper reasoning

Hello AshamedIndian there have been multiple gaps in the page and I have been making efforts to neutralize the content. As I can see you have gone ahead and reversed the whole page to an earlier version without proper reasoning. I seek your concurrence in the matter to state proper reasons behind such major edits. I am reversing the changes made by you due to lack of reasoning and neutrality norms as per Wikipedia guidelines.I would like to inform you that repeated edits without reasoning will be escalated to Admins and other editors. I am, otherwise, open to your suggestions provided they are discussed prior to edits here on the Talk Page. Thanks CartonMan (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello CartoonMan YOu are making modifications to this page based on unreported & unverified information. All changes made by me are derived from reputed news websites and reports. The NSEL fraud has impacted 13000 families where Rs 9600 cr of fraud money is involved. Your posts tend to absolve the criminals and pointing finger elsewhere. Am reversing the changes from your side. Please review the Links provided for authenticity of my information. Thanks AshamedIndian (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello CartoonMan You are making modifications to this page based on unreported & unverified information. All changes made by me are derived from reputed news websites and reports. The NSEL fraud has impacted 13000 families where Rs 9600 cr of fraud money is involved. Your posts tend to absolve the criminals and pointing finger elsewhere. Am reversing the changes from your side. Please review the Links provided for authenticity of my information. Thanks AshamedIndian (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello AshamedIndian, I agree that you have cited reputed news publications in your edits. But the fact of the matter is that there has been constant development in the said case. Your citations, as I can see, date back to a few years ago. That being said, the pertaining information has progressed over time, much like the case. It is common knowledge to keep the page up to date as per the current scenario. If there are any citations that you think are out of place, please state your reasons for the same -- would be more than happy to discuss here but complete reverts are unacceptable. Thank you CartonMan (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello CMshah

I perceive that you had completely overhauled the content of the NSEL case article. My concern is that the narrative of the text has turned accusatory towards the concerned parties. Moreover, the information is identical to the content on the page which was subject to frequent edit wars. May I ask you to state eligible reasons as to why you’ve altered the content at such a substantial level without so much as a hint of rational debate on the talk page?

As far as the NSEL-FTIL merger section is concerned, you have made edits based on recent news which seems ironical in the sense that the rest of your edits are based on out-dated citations. It is simply indicative of an unknown agenda behind your rescripts on the page.

I have undone your changes and await your reply with justified cogitation. Thank you. CartonMan (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello CambridgeBayWeather,

I’m reaching out to you to seek assistance on the this page since you have previously edited and protected the page. As you are probably aware, some editors, namely AshamedIndian, CMshah and NimrodIndia have made unwarranted revisions to the page in the past in addition to the latest edits. The edits have largely avoided reason despite the edit wars on the page in the recent past.

I had initially sought debate on the matter on the Talk page to reach a consensus and thereby follow the same for the further revisions. As it turns out, contrary to my efforts, these editors have repeatedly edited the content to a previous structure which was subject to dispute, as recently done by NimrodIndia. It is therefore apparent to some degree that these editors have a vested purpose in the article. Additionally, I had previously marked CMshah on his/her talk page and posted the same in NSEL case Talk page to seek debate on the Talk page before resorting to blatant edits. That has certainly been in vain. As you have probably guessed, I request your assistance or advice on the matter as you deem appropriate. I would still incline towards seeking debate and coming to neutral point of view when it comes to the context of the page. Please advise. Thank you. CartonMan (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

CartonMan. I don't usually take part in discussions when I have protected the page. You would need to look at WP:Dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello CMshah

I must urge you to discuss in detail before you decide to reverse the page. Edit warring has left the page subject to the tag permanently, due to which the article cannot be improved upon. Modifying the content without any reason is unacceptable. Please discuss here before you edit the content again, because I intend to free article of the ‘edit warring’ tag. I am repeatedly requesting that you should discuss on the talk page before making any edits.

Thank you.CartonMan (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I have undone your edits, for obvious reasons. However, I am retaining the latest developments.CartonMan (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandals at Work

This page was turned into the prime accused Jignesh Shah's hagiography CMshah (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Block CMshah and Nimrodindia for Bogus Editing

The profiles Nimrodindia and CMShah have been removing relevant content from the page even though it is backed up with credible citations and sources. The profiles have a history of deleting content without any rhyme or reason and have been violating the Wikipedia guidelines. All their changes seem to be violating Wikipedia policies.

Nimrodindia has made close to 28-30 reverts on the changes, since November 2013, without proper reason and despite the content having reliable and WP verified sources. CMShah has made around 20 reverts since April 2016 on similar lines. Their individual profiles have been time and again warned against such reverts and advised to discuss the issues on the talk page. But they have continued with vandalism and bogus editing.

On the NSEL Case, the content removed recently included the latest developments on the case. It was also backed with sources accepted by Wikipedia. There was no reason given for the removal of the content and this makes the page non-neutral. They also do not discuss the same on the talk page. From the beginning of the page in 2014, they have been removing relevant information. They have been warned for the same but this has not stopped them from acting in this manner. Their edits have compromised the neutrality of the page and hence their profiles should be deleted.

For example, one of the changes made by them is the removal of the part where ‘Bombay High Court had ordered EOW to release Jignesh Shah on bail’ despite the content being the latest development on the case and was backed by credible citations. Removal of the content of his bail tends to show that Jignesh Shah is still under arrest, which is not the case and gives out wrong information on Wikipedia.

The reverts and additions made by them are also not in tandem with the Wikipedia guidelines. None of their content is backed by citations or sources. They have not provided any basis for any of the changes made by them. Given the biased and unfair edits and changes on Wikipedia, their profiles should be deleted and the previous version of the page before their latest changes should be restored. Their actions are harming the work of other handles and the information reflected on Wikipedia.

Most of the other handles have been making relevant contributions that are neutral and in line with the latest developments in the case. We request the two handles NimrodIndia and CMShah to discuss on the talk page before making any changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope1123 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)