Kakinada-based coop. society office-bearers grant themselves ₹220 cr. as loans
The Hindu
Vice-chairman alone has taken ₹64.47 cr. without any security; all loans are overdue
More than ₹220 crore deposits collected by the Jaya Lakshmi Mutually Aided Multipurpose (MAM) Cooperative Society Limited were taken as loans by the society’s vice-chairman (VC), directors and their relatives, and a group of 32 parties in the ₹457.48 crore scam unearthed by the government last week. All the loans are overdue till date.
In a preliminary investigation report, Kakinada District Collector Krithika Shukla said, “The society has collected ₹457.48 crore deposits from 19,000 depositors holding 59,205 accounts — savings, recurring and fixed deposit — through its 29 branches in Coastal Andhra Pradesh. More than ₹220 crore of the deposits have been diverted in the name of loans granted to the VC, directors, a consultant and their relatives and 32 parties without any ‘guarantee and security/”.
Ms. Krithika Shukla said the society had barely ₹2.81 crore reserves as per the audit report 2020-21.
Based in Kakinada city, the society has branches in Godavari, Krishna regions and Northern Andhra Pradesh. Established in 1999, the society has 11 branches in Kakinada city alone.
VC R.B. Visalakshi had taken 27 loans through which ₹64.47 crore had been diverted while director M. Satyanarayana had been granted loans worth ₹18.34 crore. Another director S. Chakra Bhaskara Rao had received ₹1.90 crore under various loans. The entire amount remained ‘overdue’. Mr. Bhaskara Rao had managed to divert ₹20.79 crore by securing loans to his relatives and they were still overdue. C.V. Subramanyam, society’s consultant, had been given ₹4.82 crore loans in his name and that of his relatives, the report said.
The investigation carried out by the authorities led by the District Cooperative Department has unearthed that ₹128.75 crore worth of loans have been granted to 32 parties without any guarantee and security.
The misappropriation came to light after the depositors complained of non-refund of deposits even after the maturity period.