SEBI bars GDR issuer and directors after company funded its own GDR subscription
CAT Technologies Limited · Listed IT services company
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Third-party confirmation
Confirmation from the custodian bank would show the proceeds were pledged, not free.
Can mislead when: Counterparties can collude or ignore requests. A non-response is logged as a gap, never as a pass.
Ownership / related-party links
Ownership checks would link the subscriber to the placing agent's promoter.
Can mislead when: Nominee directors and offshore layers hide links. Name matching throws up false positives, so every flag shows its evidence path.
End-use tracing of funds
End-use tracing would show the GDR money never reached the company.
Can mislead when: Kubr sees only the company's own accounts. Once money reaches a third party's bank, Kubr can flag the payee but cannot see the next hop without that party's consent.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Valuation context
Offered in India- Peer multiples and the exit-multiple bridge would have shown how much of the story relied on valuation holding.
Borrower monitor
Offered in India- C3 Ownership checks would link the subscriber to the placing agent's promoter.
- C6 End-use tracing would show the GDR money never reached the company.
Proceeds tracer
Offered in India- C3 Ownership checks would link the subscriber to the placing agent's promoter.
- C6 End-use tracing would show the GDR money never reached the company.
Verified Snapshot
Offered in India- C3 Ownership checks would link the subscriber to the placing agent's promoter.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.