sebi:QJA/AS/WRO/WRO/23920/2022-23
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; penalties imposed; refund direction denied
Provisions invoked
- s. 11B
- s. 11
- s. 15
- s. 11(1)
- s. 12A
- s. 12
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 15F
- s. 15E
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 2(1)(c)
- Reg. 16
- Reg. 17
- Reg. 15
- Reg. 5
- Reg. 21(2)
- Reg. 21
- Reg. 3(a)
- Reg. 15(1)
- Reg. 21(1)
- Reg. 2(m)
- Reg. 28
- Reg. 15(9)
- Reg. 16(b)
- Reg. 35
- Reg. 17(a)
- Reg. 2(l)
- Reg. 17(e)
Parties
- Mr. Mukesh Vishwakarma, Proprietor of Striker Stock Research
Holding
The Noticee was found to have violated sections 12A(a),(b),(c) of the SEBI Act read with regulations 3(a),(b),(c),(d) of the PFUTP Regulations, and regulations 15(1), 15(9), 17(a),(c),(d),(e), 21(1), 21(2) and clauses 1, 2 and 6 of the Code of Conduct of the IA Regulations, and penalties totaling ₹19,00,000 were imposed under sections 15HA, 15HB and 15EB of the SEBI Act. The proposed direction to refund ₹7,53,94,971 was, however, not issued.
Full text
Order in the matter of Mr. Mukesh Vishwakarma, proprietor of Striker Stock Research Page 2 of 55 directions under sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B(1) of the SEBI Act read with regulation 35 of SEBI (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008 (“Intermediaries Regulations”) and regulation 28 of IA Regulations should not be issued against him, and why penalty under sections 11B(2) and 11(4A) read with sections 15HA, 15HB (for violations prior to March 8, 2019) and section 15EB (for violations subsequent to March 8, 2019) of SEBI Act read with rule 5 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 1995 (“Penalty Rules”) should not be imposed on the Noticee.
Order in the matter of Mr. Mukesh Vishwakarma, proprietor of Striker Stock Research Page 3 of 55 3.4. Vide email dated August 14, 2020, details of bank statements were sought from the aforesaid banks. Observations from bank statements are mentioned below:
Order in the matter of Mr. Mukesh Vishwakarma, proprietor of Striker Stock Research Page 4 of 55 sample clients, 17 were categorized under Medium Risk category. Out of those 17 clients, Noticee sold high risk category products to 14 clients. It is alleged that the act of selling products, meant for ‘High Risk’ clients, to ‘Medium Risk’ clients is deliberate on the part of the Noticee to somehow sell different products to clients in order to earn maximum fees from clients.
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:QJA/AS/WRO/WRO/23920/2022-23. 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.