sebi:PB/AO-32/2012
Facts / Headnote
Violation of regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(g) of PFUTP Regulations established; penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 imposed under section 15HA of SEBI Act.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations relied on
- SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 — 4(1)
- SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 — 4(2)(a)
- SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 — 4(2)(b)
- SEBI (PFUTP) Regulations, 2003 — 4(2)(g)
Parties
- Akhilesh Kamla Prasad
Holding
The Noticee was found to have violated regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b) and 4(2)(g) of the PFUTP Regulations by indulging in circular and synchronized trading with a connected group, creating artificial volume and impacting the price of FDIL scrip, and a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000 was imposed under section 15HA of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 22 3. The role of the entities who had traded in the scrip of FDIL was scrutinized. It was observed during the investigation that certain entities viz. Akhilesh Kamla Prasad, Balasaheb J Kamble, Dinesh K Pandey, Jagadish R Jani, Kirit S Gandhi, Vijay K Bohra, Dilip A Pawar and Hiren Kirit Gandhi (hereinafter referred as “Group”) had allegedly indulged in synchronization of deals/circular trading/fictitious trading in such a manner that led to creation of artificial volume and impacted the price of the scrip.
Page 3 of 22 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HEARING AND REPLY 6. Show Cause Notice No. EAD-7/PB/AK/21002/2011 dated June 30, 2011 (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 and penalty be not imposed under section 15HA of SEBI Act for the alleged violation specified in the said SCN.
Page 4 of 22 Mumbai vide notice dated December 07, 2011. The said notice was signed and acknowledged by the Noticee. One Mr. Vikas Bengani, vide email dated December 19, 2011 requested for the postponement of hearing. Another opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the Noticee on January 05, 2012 at SEBI, Head Office, Mumbai vide notice dated December 20, 2011. However, the Noticee did not appear for the hearing. Instead Mr. Vikas Bengani, Authorized Representative, (hereinafter referred to as “AR”) vide email dated December 28, 2011 requested for the inspection of the documents and submitted the authorization letter from the Noticee dated December 26, 2011. The Noticee was granted an opportunity of inspection of documents on January 25, 2012, at SEBI, Head Office, Mumbai vide notice dated January 17, 2012. However, the Noticee vide email dated January 24, 2012 requested for postponement of the date of inspection of documents. Acceding to the request of the Noticee, another opportunity of inspection of documents was granted to the Noticee on February 15, 2012 at SEBI, Head Office, Mumbai vide notice dated February 03, 2012. The AR appeared on February 15, 2012 and inspected the documents including the relevant portion of the investigation report on behalf of the Noticee. Further, vide notice dated February 03, 2012, it was advised to the Noticee to submit the reply to the SCN within 10 days from the date of inspection of documents. However, the Noticee chose to ignore
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:PB/AO-32/2012. 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.