sebi:PG/AO-75/2010
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violations established; penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 imposed on the Noticee
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(a)
- Reg. 4(2)
Parties
- Rajeev Dadda
Holding
The Noticee, Rajeev Dadda, violated regulations 3, 4(1), 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(g) of the PFUTP Regulations by executing synchronized circular/reversal trades with Jyoti Jain that created artificial volume in AIL, and is liable to monetary penalty under section 15HA of the SEBI Act.
Full text
Page 2 of 19 noted that Mrs. Jyoti Jain is the wife of Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain. These trades created artificial volume in the scrip of AIL. The address of Rajeev Dadda is – 4463, Dadda House, KGB Ka Rasta, Johari Bazaar, Jaipur – 302003.
Page 3 of 19 6. In the interest of natural justice and in order to conduct an inquiry as per rule 4(3) of the Rules, the Noticee was granted an opportunity of personal hearing on November 18, 2010 vide Notice dated November 03, 2010. However, the Noticee vide letter dated nil received by SEBI on November 19, 2010 sought for a extension of 15 days to file reply to the SCN and appear for hearing. Thereafter, another opportunity of hearing was granted to the Noticee on December 13, 2010 vide notice dated November 22, 2010. The Noticee vide letter dated December 08, 2010 sought another date for the hearing and also requested that the same be held in Mumbai. Subsequently, another opportunity of hearing at the SEBI HO in Mumbai was granted to the Noticee on December 24, 2010, vide notice dated December 14, 2010.
Page 4 of 19 and that all the trades executed were in the normal course of business. iv) That there were no major price/ volume fluctuation/contribution of the Noticee in the scrip of AIL during the period of investigation. v) That no loss was caused to the investors because of alleged trades in question and no gain was received by the Noticee either. vi) That there was no common telephone number between the Noticee and the other counterparty client and the sub- broker. There appeared to be some clerical error as the Noticee’s number was 2564432, that of the sub-broker was 2575347 and the number of Jyoti Jain was 2572912. Noticee also submitted copy of modified UCC details downloaded from BSE website.
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-75/2010. 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.