sebi:ORDER/JJ/MG/2022-2023/15802
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty imposed on Noticee for violation of PFUTP Regulations
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 3(a)
Parties
- Anjana Goenka
Holding
The Noticee was held liable for violating Regulations 3(a), 3(b) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003 by executing non-genuine synchronized reversal trades that created artificial volume, and a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 was imposed under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992.
Full text
Page 2 of 14 Regulation 4 (1), 4(2) (a) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trading Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”).
Page 3 of 14 counterparty at a substantial price difference without any basis for significant change in the contract price which indicates that this trade was artificial and is non-genuine in nature.
Page 4 of 14 said contract in the market was 100% (22,000 being total market volume in the contract) during this period. Hence, it is alleged that by two trades Noticee executed a total volume of 22000 units which was artificial and non-genuine in nature.
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:ORDER/JJ/MG/2022-2023/15802. 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.