sebi:PG/AO-70/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 imposed on Samir P Shah under section 15HA of SEBI Act for violation of regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a), (b), (e) and (g) of PFUTP Regulations; charge under regulation 4(2)(n) not made out as it applies only to intermediaries.
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 4(a)
Parties
- Samir P Shah
Holding
The Noticee, Samir P Shah, was held to have violated regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a), (b), (e) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations by engaging in synchronized circular/reversal trades that created artificial volume and misleading appearance of trading in AEL shares, and was imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 15HA of the SEBI Act. Regulation 4(2)(n) was held inapplicable as it applies only to intermediaries.
Full text
Page 2 of 18 artificial volume and impacted the price of the scrip. The entities found to have been involved in the alleged manipulation are as under:-
Page 3 of 18 simultaneously traded as a client on the opposite side through M/s. Naman Securities & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Naman”) broker-BSE and was alleged to have violated the provisions of regulations 4 (1), 4 (2) (a), (b), (e), (g) and (n) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”) and therefore, liable for monetary penalty under sections 15HA and 15HB of Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”).
Page 4 of 18 a query. The query was answered vide letter dated June 27, 2006. Subsequently vide hearing notice dated August 12, 2009 the Noticee was given an opportunity of personal hearing on August 24, 2009 to which the Noticee responded vide letter dated August 21, 2009 stating that an application for consent proceeding had already been made and requested for the hearing to be adjourned. On September 8, 2009 SEBI communicated that the consent application filed by the Noticee has been rejected.
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:PG/AO-70/2010. 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.