sebi:ORDER/SM/LD/2022-23/22691
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Noticee found to have violated Clauses 1, 2, 3, 13, 25, 27, 28 and 30 of the Code of Conduct (Schedule III) read with Regulation 13 of the RTA Regulations; penalty determination not fully visible in the provided text
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
- s. 28A
Regulations
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 199
Parties
- MCS Share Transfer Agent Limited
Holding
The Noticee (MCS Share Transfer Agent Limited) failed to comply with Clauses 1, 2, 3, 13, 25, 27, 28 and 30 of the Code of Conduct under Schedule III read with Regulation 13 of the RTA Regulations by not exercising due diligence while processing the demat request that resulted in fraudulent transfer of the Complainant's shares.
Full text
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjudication Order in the matter of Complaint of Ms. M Vimala against Page 2 of 23 MCS Share Transfer Agent Limited
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjudication Order in the matter of Complaint of Ms. M Vimala against Page 3 of 23 MCS Share Transfer Agent Limited 1, 2, 3,13, 25, 27, 28 and 30 of the Code of Conduct as specified in Schedule III read with Regulation 13 of the RTA Regulations by the Noticee with regard to a complaint filed by the Complainant. Thereafter, Shri Amit Kapoor, General Manager was appointed Adjudicating Officer vide order dated September 19, 2022. Subsequently I was appointed Adjudication Officer by SEBI vide Order dated October 06, 2022. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REPLY AND HEARING
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjudication Order in the matter of Complaint of Ms. M Vimala against Page 4 of 23 MCS Share Transfer Agent Limited 3) There were several differences observed on comparing the original share certificate lying with the Complainant and the one submitted along with the DRF.The Noticee had processed the demat request inspite of the father’s name of the shareholder provided by the imposter/s with the demat request did not match with the names available in the Noticee’s records. 4) Dematerialization of shares was approved without the original share certificate. 5) Noticee did not do due diligence while processing demat request inspite of already being in knowledge of the fraud committed in a previous case. 6) The fraud in the matter was committed in connivance with the Noticee.
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/SM/LD/2022-23/22691. 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.