sebi:SD/AO/78/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Violation established; monetary penalty imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 15
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
Regulations
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 3
Parties
- Shri Manoj T. Shah
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a), (b), (e) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations by executing fraudulent synchronized trades in the scrip of AEL and is liable for monetary penalty under Section 15HA of the Act, with a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 imposed.
Full text
Page 2 of 8 2. The role of the main brokers and clients who had traded heavily during the period under investigation in the scrip of AEL was scrutinized. The Investigations revealed that certain entities, including Shri Manoj T. Shah (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Noticee’), transacted in the shares of AEL in a fraudulent manner that led to creation of artificial volume and a false market.
Page 3 of 8 6. The SCN was sent by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due and the same was duly delivered. In response to the same, the Noticee sent a letter dated July 15, 2008. In the interest of natural justice and in order to conduct an inquiry as per Rule 4 (3) of the Adjudication Rules, the undersigned granted opportunities of personal hearing to the Noticee on February 02, 2009 and February 18, 2009. The Noticee did not appear for the said personal hearings. Thereafter, vide Office Note dated March 23, 2009 the undersigned was requested to keep the adjudication proceedings in abeyance as the Noticee had filed a consent application in this matter. Vide Office Note dated September 22, 2009 it was communicated to the undersigned that the said consent application was rejected in the HPAC meeting held on August 31, 2009 and the undersigned was requested to revive the adjudication proceedings. Thereafter, the undersigned granted another opportunity of personal hearing to the Noticee which was attended by him on February 24, 2010. During the personal hearing, the Noticee submitted that he had received the SCN and had understood the allegations against him. On being asked whether he wished to seek or inspect any further documents in this matter, the Noticee submitted that he had seen all the documents and did not wish to seek any further documents. He also undertook to submit a detailed written reply to the SCN by March 26, 2010. Thereafter, the Noticee submitted a reply vide lett
Page 4 of 8 materials and documents available on record. The issues that arise for consideration in the present case are:
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:SD/AO/78/2011. 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.