sebi:WTM/GA/83/IS

SEBI · SEBI · 2004-10-21 · G. Ananthar, Whole Time Member

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Minor penalty of suspension of certificate of registration for a period of fifteen days imposed, effective on expiry of 21 days from the date of order

Provisions invoked

• s. 15A

Regulations

• Reg. 4
• Reg. 13(2)
• Reg. 13(4)
• Reg. 13(1)(a)

Parties

• Gayathri & Co (INB080169817), Member, Bangalore Stock Exchange Ltd.

Holding

The Broker violated SEBI Circulars dated April 11, 1997 and November 18, 1993 by failing to obtain KYC/member-client agreements, verify client antecedents and financial capacity, and by delivering securities to a third party without authorization, but did not violate the FUTP Regulations; a minor penalty of suspension of registration for fifteen days was imposed.

Full text

2.4 After considering the submissions of the Broker, the Enquiry Officer vide his report dated October 21, 2004, recommended for the imposition of a minor penalty of suspen certificate of registration (granted by SEBI) of  the Broker for a period one month, in terms of 2002 Regulations.  The Enquiry Officer observed that the Broker had traded in th of HTL on behalf of his clients viz. Shri Sudhakar Dani, Ms. Radhika Dani, D S Investments and Shri Sanath Kumar, who were new and introduced by Shri. Rajneesh of HTL also established that the order on behalf of those clients were placed by Shri. Rajneesh and the delivery was also taken by him. 2.5 The Enquiry Officer has also observed that the Broker had traded substantially (for 1,05,600 shares) in the scrip of HTL in his proprietary account and the said transaction at regulation 4 (c) of the FUTP Regulations.  Further, the Enquiry Officer noted that the Broker did not act in good faith and without negligence when he had traded for his client scrip of HTL. It was also observed by the Enquiry Officer that the Broker could not produce any evidence to suggest that he had obtained KYC forms and verified the fi capabilities, net worth etc. of his clients before commencing trades on their behalf. The Enquiry Officer had also observed that the Broker had not produced the broke agreement. 3.0  CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS   3.1             Based upon the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice dated October 29,

clients had specifically authorized Shri Rajneesh to take the delivery from the Broker on their behalf. Though the Enquiry Officer discussed the admission of the Broker regar non delivery of securities to the clients he has not made a specific finding with respect to the violation of the above circular committed by the Broker. In the context of the ad by the Broker on non delivery of securities and coupled with the fact that the Broker has not given any submission with respect to his admission as stated above, in his rep November 12, 2004, it is fairly established that the Broker has violated the provisions of SEBI Circular dated November 18, 1993.   3.12         Further, the trades executed by the Broker for his clients were voluminous and also they appear to be not innocuous transactions but one meant to create artificial volume scrip of HTL as would be evident from the concentrated volume and sharp movement of price in the said scrip and also in view of the admissions made by the Broker, it wou reasonable inference that the Broker did not act in good faith and without negligence when he had traded for his clients in the scrip of HTL. 3.13         In this connection, it would be relevant to refer the following extracts of the  order dated  September 18, 2003 of the Hon’ble Securities Appellate Tribunal in Madhukar S SEBI (Appeal No.46 of 2002):

findings of the Enquiry Report in respect of his mistakes that happened for not strictly complying with the general requirements of proper introduction of a new client, prop registration along with photo identity. The Broker further stated that the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Officer of SEBI was already paid by him and therefore, the sus of the certificate of registration for a period of one month would become a double punishment. In view of the above, the Broker has requested to close the matter with the has already been paid by him and further assured that the mistakes would not happen in future. 3.3             I have perused the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, show cause notice issued by SEBI, reply filed by the Broker and other relevant material available on record. I n the Broker, vide his reply dated November 12, 2004 raised a preliminary objection that the proposed penalty would become a double punishment, as the Adjudicating Officer had already imposed a monetary penalty of Rs. 15,000/- and the same was remitted by him. 3.4             I note that the adjudication proceedings were initiated against the Broker for the alleged violation of the provisions of section 15A(b) of the Act. The allegation leveled aga Broker in the said proceedings was that, he had failed to submit the client registration forms and broker client agreement to the investigating authority of SEBI du investigation into the price manipulation in the scrip of HTL. The said violation

Source: SecMarx — sebi:WTM/GA/83/IS. 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.