sebi:Order/BM/DS/2022-23/17525-17534

SEBI · SEBI · 2021-09-23 · Barnali Mukherjee, Adjudicating Officer

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Violations of PFUTP Regulations, 2003 established against Noticees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10; Noticee 9 exonerated; penalty of ₹9,00,000 imposed jointly and severally on Noticees 1 to 8 and 10

Provisions invoked

• s. 15
• s. 15H
• s. 15J
• s. 28A

Regulations

• Reg. 3
• Reg. 4(1)
• Reg. 3(a)
• Reg. 4(2)(e)
• Reg. 3(a)(b)(c)

Holding

The Adjudicating Officer held that Noticees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 violated Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a), (e) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003 by executing synchronized trades, contributing to artificial volume, and manipulating the Last Traded Price and New High Price of Sanco Industries Limited scrip during the investigation period, while Noticee 9 was exonerated as it was not found to be a connected entity for the alleged violations.

Full text

Adjudication Order in the matter of Sanco Industries Limited Page 2 of 55 BACKGROUND 1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI”) conducted investigation in respect of alleged manipulation in the scrip of Sanco Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Sanco / Company / SIL”) during the period January 01, 2016 to November 23, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IP”). Pursuant to the investigation, it was alleged that aforementioned Noticees 1 to 10 violated the provisions of Regulations 3(a),(b),(c),(d), 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (g) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations, 2003”) and Noticees 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 also violated the provisions of Regulation 4(2)(e) of PFUTP Regulations, 2003.

Adjudication Order in the matter of Sanco Industries Limited Page 3 of 55 in terms of Section 15-I of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with Rule 4 of the Adjudication Rules, 1995 to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against them and why penalty, if any, under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992 be not imposed on the Noticees. Noticees 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10

Adjudication Order in the matter of Sanco Industries Limited Page 4 of 55 captioned matter. It was also informed that it was the last and final opportunity of hearing being provided to them. However, Noticees 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 did not appear for the hearing, and no communication has been made by them till date. Noticee 3

Source: SecMarx — sebi:Order/BM/DS/2022-23/17525-17534. 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.