sebi:BM/AO-146/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 4(2)
- Reg. 4(2)(e)
- Reg. 4(2)(b)
Parties
- Swastika Investment Mart Ltd.
Holding
The Noticee, Swastika Investment Mart Ltd., is alleged to have aided and abetted manipulative synchronized and structured trading in Asian Star Company Limited scrip through its client Sandeep Jain, thereby failing to conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence, and is liable for monetary penalty under section 15HA of the SEBI Act for contravention of Schedule II of the Stock Brokers Regulations.
Full text
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Swastika Investment Mart Ltd. in the matter of Asian Star Company Limited Page 2 of 28 allegedly connected to each other had indulged in circular/reversal synchronized trading in such a manner that led to creation of artificial volume in the scrips.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Swastika Investment Mart Ltd. in the matter of Asian Star Company Limited Page 3 of 28 in Schedule II of the SEBI (Stock Broker and Sub‐broker) Regulation, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “Stock Brokers Regulations”). Consequently, the Noticee is liable for monetary penalty under section 15HA of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI Act’).
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Swastika Investment Mart Ltd. in the matter of Asian Star Company Limited Page 4 of 28 mentioned by you for manipulative transactions in any scrip. The investigation authorities also didn’t find any financial or business transactions between us and the alleged parties. We never had any relation/ communication/ association for alleged manipulated transactions with any party. (d) That all the pay in obligation of our client Mr. Sandeep was made by him depositing the cheques at Udaipur and as per his confirmation, we had given credit to his account. Due to depositing of cheques at out station, we could not detect the third party cheques, we were in impression that all the cheques are being deposited from the client from his own account. At that time we were not having any software or system to detect the third party cheques, hence this mistake occurred at our end, and we explained the same to investigating authorities. (e) That there were only some procedural lapses at our end like acceptance of third party cheques sue to failure in tracking third party deposits of pay in obligations. Now we have pt some procedure in our system to track the third party transactions. We are now getting soft copy of the instruments on mail or fax before giving any credit to resp
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:BM/AO-146/2011. 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.