sebi:BM/AO-28/2012
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed under section 15HB of SEBI Act for violation of Clause A(2) of Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers; allegations under PFUTP Regulations and Clauses A(1), A(3), A(4), A(5) of Code of Conduct not established.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 4(2)
- Reg. 4(2)(b)
Parties
- Ajmera Associates Pvt. Ltd.
Holding
The Noticee (Ajmera Associates Pvt. Ltd.) was found to have violated Clause A(2) of the Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers (due skill and care) but was not found to have violated PFUTP Regulations or Clauses A(1), A(3), A(4), A(5) of the Code of Conduct. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed under section 15HB of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 18 2. Investigation observed that the company ALL made a number of premature and misleading corporate announcements. During this time the promoters of ALL viz: Aditya Jain, Divya Jain, Shakuntala Jain, Kumud Jain, Rajkumar Jain, Vivek Jain, Shivani Jain and Advik Finance and Properties Private Limited transferred shares to the connected/related entities and started trading actively among themselves and entered into synchronized transactions in the market. This allegedly created artificial volume and generated more demand in the scrip and as a result, the share price increased and subsequently the promoters offloaded their own shares.
Page 3 of 18 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HEARING AND REPLY 5. Show Cause Notice No. EAD-6/BM/JR/21703/2010 dated September 30, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”) was issued to the Noticee under rule 4(1) of the Rules to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against the Noticee and penalty be not imposed on the Noticee under sections 15HA and 15HB of SEBI Act for the alleged violation specified in the said SCN.
Page 4 of 18 o BSE never cautioned us – in fact since the end entities were different, even BSE perhaps could not have noticed alleged matching (as the end clients’ PAN numbers which are mapped on the system must be different) of orders. o We deny that we were involved in any manner in any synchronized trading in ALL scrip as alleged. We were not aware about clients’ intention, if any, to carry out manipulative trades. The clients’ trading pattern of intra-day nature, delivery based trading etc. could not raise any suspicion. The clients met their settlement obligations in time regularly. o We were not involved in any pre-arrangement of synchronization and artificial volume creation exercise in the shares of ALL as inferred or otherwise. We deny that we were a part of any group or colluded with anyone as alleged or otherwise. We did not synchronize any trade with anyone else – had we been part of any group. Our such objectionable volume would have been substantial, every day, at every price etc. We did not indulge into off market dealings, third party trades, side deals, etc. in the said scrip. There was no reason/ motive for us to indulge in any kind of irregularity in trading. o Some of the clients had done intra-day trading and whatever quantity was bought was sold during the day – To treat such trading as synchronized simplicitor in a wholesale manner is farfetched, a far cry and absurd. Every client follows a different strategy depending upon his perception, risk appetit
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-28/2012. 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.