sebi:WTM/MB/WRO/WRO/11265/2020-21
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Interim ex-parte directions issued against Noticee: cease and desist from acting as investment adviser, no diversion of funds, no disposal of assets, removal of advertisements, no access to securities market, freeze of ICICI Bank account credits/debits, deactivation of PayTM/PhonePe/GooglePay accounts, freeze of demat accounts and RTA transfers; order also treated as show cause notice.
Provisions invoked
- s. 11
- s. 19
- s. 12(1)
- s. 12A
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 2(1)(c)
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 3(1)
- Reg. 2(m)
- Reg. 2(l)
Parties
- Mr. Nilesh Vipinchandra Vajifdar
Holding
The Noticee was prima facie found to be holding himself out and acting as an unregistered Investment Adviser in violation of Section 12(1) of the SEBI Act read with Regulation 3(1) of the IA Regulations, and his conduct was prima facie fraudulent in violation of Sections 12A(a), (b), (c) of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a)-(d) and 4(1), 4(2)(k) of the PFUTP Regulations. Urgent interim ex-parte directions were issued freezing his bank accounts, payment interfaces, demat accounts and prohibiting him from acting as an investment adviser.
Full text
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Interim Order in the matter of Nilesh Vipinchandra Vajifdar Page 1 of 19 WTM/MB/WRO/WRO/11265/2020-21
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Interim Order in the matter of Nilesh Vipinchandra Vajifdar Page 2 of 19 SEBI’s Examination:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Interim Order in the matter of Nilesh Vipinchandra Vajifdar Page 3 of 19 5.1. Issue No. 1: Whether Noticee is holding himself out and/or acting as investment adviser? 5.2. Issue No. 2: If answer to the aforesaid issue is in affirmative, whether Noticee has, prima facie, violated any provisions of SEBI Act read with IA Regulations and provisions of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”)? 5.3. Issue No. 3: If answers to Issue Nos. 1 or 2 are affirmative, who are responsible for the violations? 5.4. Issue No. 4: If answer to Issue No. 2 is in affirmative, whether urgent directions, if any, should be issued against those responsible for the violations?
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/MB/WRO/WRO/11265/2020-21. 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.