sebi:Order/SM/S./2022-23/23302-23316
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. 12A
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
- s. 28A
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 2(1)(c)
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 200
- Reg. 3(a)
- Reg. 4(2)(a)
Holding
The Adjudicating Officer found that Noticees 1 to 5 (Group I) and Noticees 7 to 15 (Group II) were connected within their respective groups, and that Noticee 6's charge was individual price manipulation rather than group-based manipulation. The order addresses allegations of synchronized, circular, reversal trades and manipulative miniscule-quantity trades creating artificial volume and misleading appearance of trading in the scrip of BFL Asset Finvest Ltd.
Full text
Adjudication Order in the matter of BFL Asset Finvest Ltd (Formerly known as BFL Developers Ltd.) Page 2 of 80 SEBI observed certain violations of provisions of, inter-alia, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”) and SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PFUTP Regulations’) by Noticees. Thereafter, SEBI initiated adjudication proceedings against Noticees under Section 15HA of SEBI Act.
Adjudication Order in the matter of BFL Asset Finvest Ltd (Formerly known as BFL Developers Ltd.) Page 3 of 80 4.2. Synchronized, circular and reversal trades indulged by Babulal Hansraj Lakhani (Noticee 7), Dhirajbhai Baladevji Thakor (Noticee 11), Bharti Sharma (Noticee 12), Jasmin Indu Shah (Noticee 14), Bhagavatiben Vishnubhai Patel (Noticee 10), Ramanlal Ravchand Shah (Noticee 8), Vinod Solanki (Noticee 9), Pinesh Nareshkumar Shah (Noticee 13) and Mahendrabhai Naranbhai Patel (Noticee 15) significantly contributed to the total volume of synchronized, reversal and circular trades. These synchronized, circular and reversal trades indulged by the aforesaid 9 Noticees did not result in change in beneficial ownership. It was therefore alleged that the trades by the aforesaid 9 Noticees created misleading appearance of trading in the scrip. Further, it was alleged since the nature of trades executed by the aforesaid 9 entities were not routine normal trades but were only sham trades, such trades had the effect of creating an artificial volume in the market.
Adjudication Order in the matter of BFL Asset Finvest Ltd (Formerly known as BFL Developers Ltd.) Page 4 of 80 4.4. By executing trades of miniscule quantity in a sustained manner for a considerable period wherein such miniscule quantities were the only trades executed for the major part of the said period, such trades were not genuine and were executed only with a manipulative intent to maintain and sustain the scrip price. It is therefore alleged that the trades of Nishant Jain (Noticee 1) and Jaipur Infragold Private Limited (Noticee 5) were manipulative in nature. therefore, it is alleged that Noticees 1 and 5 violated Section 12A(a), (b), (c) of SEBI Act and Regulations 3 (a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1) & 4(2)(a) and (e) of PFUTP Regulations.
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/S./2022-23/23302-23316. 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.