sebi:WTM/KMA/IVD/405/07/2011
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Warning issued; enquiry proceedings disposed of
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
Regulations
- Reg. 28(2)
- Reg. 4(d)
Parties
- Toss Financial Services Private Limited
Holding
The stock broker was held to have contravened Regulation 4(d) of the PFUTP Regulations and Clauses A(2) and C(5) of the Code of Conduct for stock brokers, but was only warned and directed to strictly adhere to applicable rules and regulations.
Full text
Page 2 of 5 aforesaid provisions charged against it. 2. Thereafter, a notice dated November 9, 2009 was issued to the stock broker enclosing therewith a copy of the Enquiry Report advising it to show cause as to why action should not be taken against it as recommended by the Enquiry Officer or higher penalty as deemed fit by the Competent Authority should not be imposed against it. As SEBI had not received any reply from the stock broker in respect of the aforesaid notice, reminders dated February 19, 2010, March 4, 2010 and October 8, 2010 were issued to it advising it to file its submissions, if any, to the notice. In the meanwhile, the stock broker had also filed an application for passing of a consent order in terms of the SEBI Circular dated April 20, 2007. Subsequent to the rejection of the said application, an opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the stock broker on November 24, 2010 which was attended by Mr. Rehman, Managing Director of the stock broker who made
Page 3 of 5 Bombay Stock Exchange Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSE). NSE analysed the data for the relevant period and found a sharp fall in price from 714.95 (as on December 22, 1999) to 275.00 (as on March 10, 2000). In its report sent to SEBI, vide letter dated September 16, 2002, NSE observed that the client, Mr. Sulaiman Lakhani, one of the top 50 shareholders of the Company appeared to have influenced the share price. Further, it observed that the fall in the share price during the said period appeared to have been influenced by him. On the basis of the Investigation Reports/observations received from NSE and BSE and the trade and order log analysis conducted by BSE, four NSE stock brokers and four BSE stock Brokers were identified on the basis of gross position as well as net buy and sell position. The stock broker was one among them. The gross purchases and sales of the stock broker across all the settlements during the investigation period were 49,900 shares and 53,400 shares respectively and it had done trading mainly for its clientele in the scrip. The stock broker has dealt in 12 settlements during the period. The percentage of traded quantity of the stock broker to the net quantity for the market ranged from 3.74% to 40.26% and as percentage to the net quantity for the market, it ranged from 71.75% to 49.05% for the respective settlements. The percentage of the total gross quantity of the stock broker to the total gross quantity traded in the market duri
Page 4 of 5 account of the client (in respect of client code no. 3126) with the stock broker showed that no margins were taken by the stock broker before buying large quantity of shares on behalf of the client and that it appeared that the stock broker had used own funds for the purchases made on behalf of the client. The Enquiry Officer had also observed that the financing arrangement between the client and the stock broker as alleged in the show cause notice stands established. During the course of hearing, the stock broker submitted that it had financed the client as it did not want to lose the said client. The Enquiry Officer has also observed that the stock broker had failed to capture the financial details such as annual income for the last three years of the client in the Know Your Client (KYC) form. This act of the stock broker is also highly objectionable. The price fluctuations took place in the shares of the Company are mentioned in detail in the Enquiry Report. The trades of the stock broker for the client are also mentioned in the Report. The details as to the manner of placing the orders on behalf of the client and how such trades had affected the share price of the Company during the investigation period are also mentioned therein. The findings of the Enquiry Officer have not been specifically refuted by the stock broker. Since, the facts of the case are not disputed, I do not consider it necessary to reproduce those details which are already mentioned in the R
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:WTM/KMA/IVD/405/07/2011. 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.