sebi:WTM/RKA/IVD/ID-4/32/2012
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Show Cause Notice dated July 29, 2011 disposed of without passing any further direction against the noticee; existing restraint/debarment orders dated June 04, 2009 and March 10, 2010 need not continue further.
Provisions invoked
- s. 12A
Regulations
- Reg. 11
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 3(a)
Parties
- Mr. Ashok Jain
Holding
The adjudicating officer found that Mr. Ashok Jain violated Regulations 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) and (g) of the PFUTP Regulations and Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act by executing reversal and synchronized trades with connected clients in the scrip of Bang, creating artificial volume. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no further direction was passed and the existing restraint/debarment orders dated June 04, 2009 and March 10, 2010 were not to continue further.
Full text
Page 2 of 4 securities market, directly or indirectly, till further directions. SEBI passed an order dated March 10, 2010 confirming the directions passed in ad interim ex-parte order.
Page 3 of 4 6. I have carefully considered the SCN, the reply, the submissions made during the hearing and all the material available on record. I note that the noticee was part of the connected clients and he has not disputed the transactions mentioned in the SCN.
Page 4 of 4 trade for 5,980 shares got executed at the same time. I therefore, find that this trade was synchronized in term of price, quantity and time.
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/RKA/IVD/ID-4/32/2012. 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.