sebi:QJA/SP/WRO/WRO/24034/2022-23

SEBI · SEBI · 2022-03-22 · Sujit Prasad, Executive Director

Reviewed by Varun Matlani, Advocate — Securities Lawyer practicing in SAT and SEBI

Facts / Headnote

Violations of IA Regulations, PFUTP Regulations and SEBI Act established against the Noticee; Enquiry Report recommended suspension of registration INA000008516 for three months and a bar on taking fresh clients for a further three months (final penalty not stated in the excerpt).

Provisions invoked

Regulations relied on

Parties

Holding

The Noticee was found to have violated Regulation 15(1), 17(a),(c),(d),(e), 21 and clauses 1, 2, 6 of the Code of Conduct read with Regulation 15(9) of the IA Regulations, and Regulation 3(a),(b),(c),(d) of the PFUTP Regulations read with Section 12A(a),(b),(c) of the SEBI Act, by assuring guaranteed returns, misrepresenting to clients, charging unfair fees and selling high-risk products to medium-risk clients.

Full text

Order in the Matter of Striker Stock Research (Proprietor – Mukesh Vishvakarma) Page 2 of 35 the Noticee, SEBI had conducted an examination in the matter which prima facie revealed violations of provisions of the IA Regulations, SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”) and SEBI Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act, 1992”).

Order in the Matter of Striker Stock Research (Proprietor – Mukesh Vishvakarma) Page 3 of 35 evidences available on record does not support the alleged violation of fraud on the part of the Noticee. Thus, the aforesaid violation does not stand established.

Order in the Matter of Striker Stock Research (Proprietor – Mukesh Vishvakarma) Page 4 of 35 Vyas filed a complaint on SCORES whereby he submitted email received from the Noticee and call data records exchanged between him and executives of the Noticee. On the basis of the email/ telephonic call record, it was observed that executive of the Noticee assured profit of Rs. 3,50,000 through telephonic conversation and the same commitment was given by the Noticee through their email dated July 6, 2019. One more person named Mr. Ratan Pandey complained on SCORES wherein he provided call data records exchanged between complainant and executives of the Noticee. In view thereof, it was observed that executive of the Noticee without any basis, provided assurance of guaranteed returns in the market. Executive was providing assurance of committed profit of ₹ 5,50,000 and the service charges for the same would be of ₹ 1,00,000 to ₹ 1,50,000. Thus, Noticee and its Proprietor Mr. Mukesh Vishvakarma failed in their responsibility to act in fiduciary capacity to their clients which is entrusted upon them under Regulation 15(1) of IA Regulations. Further, the Noticee by giving assured profit /committed profits/returns lured the client and gave false hope and thus acted fraudulently and dishonestly on the clients. Thus, the Noticee violated Regulation 15(1) of the IA Regulations, clauses 1 and 2 of the Code of Conduct for the IA provided in the Third Schedule read with Regulation 15(9) of the I

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.

Analyse this matter in Ontology · Plans

Source: SecMarx — sebi:QJA/SP/WRO/WRO/24034/2022-23. 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.