sebi:190-210_193
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 12
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 13(4)
- Reg. 5(1)
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 4(a)
- Reg. 6
- Reg. 47
- Reg. 2
Parties
- M/s Media Investments (sub-broker of BSE broker Joindre Capital Services Limited)
- M/s Agroy Finance & Investment Ltd., Member, The Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd.
- M/s Victory Financial Services Ltd.
Holding
The Noticees were found to have violated the FUTP Regulations and the Code of Conduct for Brokers by executing cross deals and synchronized trades that created artificial volume and price in the scrips of ITIL, STIL and WML, thereby vitiating the price discovery mechanism. The Enquiry Officer's data containing an error (wrong Dealer ID) was not relied upon; only the admitted 41 cross-deal transactions were considered sufficient to establish the violation.
Full text
May 30, 2007 | Orders : Orders of Chairman/Members BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA CORAM : V. K. CHOPRA, WHOLE TIME MEMBER Against M/s Media Investments, a registered sub-broker of BSE broker Joindre Capital Services Limited in the matter of Warner Multimedia Limited DATE OF HEARING: 12.03.2007 APPEARANCES: FOR COMPANIES/ BROKERS: FOR SEBI:
Company in 1989 i.e. more than 15 years back and as such he had no direct or indirect connection with Usha Group in that regard. Further, as an auditor of Pukhraj Holding (P) Lt been any necessity or need to investigate into the association of Pukhraj Holdings (P) Ltd. with the Usha Group. As per the Client Registration Form and Client Agreement by each not possible to identify as to what group they belong to, if any. It is further stated that the charge of aiding the promoters for manipulation is a serious charge with serious con Enquiry Officer can not proceed to recommend penalty merely on the basis of “preponderance of probability”. 4.1.4 Regarding the statement recorded by the investigating authority about their knowledge and linkage with the Usha Group which was relied by the Enquiry Officer, the Noticee state connection of the Director with the Usha Group can not in any way imply that the Noticee is aware about the relationship of the client connected with Usha Group and their intention such as manipulating the price and creating artificial volume in the scrip of ITIL. 4.1.5 The Noticee submitted that there is no legal bar for having a same contact person who places orders on behalf of 2-3 clients. 4.1.6 The Noticee stated that they have no connection with the clients whatsoever and have not traded in their account or through their friends and relatives during the relevant period. The the data relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to prove the cross deals by stating that
6. Ambika Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. 7. Vedant Steel Casings Pvt. Ltd. decision of the buyer / seller thereby inducing him to buy or sell depending upon how the market has been manipulated. We are therefore of the view that inducement to any person to buy or sell securities is the necessary consequence of manipulation and flows therefrom. In other words, if the factum of manipulation is established it will necessarily follow that the investors in the market had been induced to buy or sell and that no further proof in this regard is required. The market, as already observed, is so wide spread that it may not be humanly possible for the Board to track the persons who were actually induced to buy or sell securities as a result of manipulation and law can never impose on the Board a burden which is impossible to be discharged.”
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:190-210_193. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.