sebi:WTM/TCN/137/IVD1/JAN/09
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Direction to be careful in future and exercise due care and diligence; no enhanced penalty imposed
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 4
- Reg. 13
- Reg. 199
- Reg. 28(2)
- Reg. 13(5)
Parties
- M/s Aarayaa Finstock Pvt. Ltd.
Holding
The broker Aarayaa Finstock Pvt. Ltd. was directed to exercise due care and diligence in future as a capital market intermediary, and warned that any future violation would be dealt with stringently. No enhanced penalty was imposed as the show cause notice failed to establish legally sustainable grounds for enhancement.
Full text
2 2. It was alleged that these connected or related clients including the clients of Aarayaa Finstock Pvt Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the broker”) viz., Shri S. Shaktishravana influenced the price of the scrip by creating artificial volume in the market thereby violating the provisions of Regulation 4 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practice relating Securities Market) Regulations 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”). It was further alleged that the broker failed to exercise due care and diligence and violated clauses A(1),(2),(3),(4) and (5) of Code of Conduct as specified in schedule II under Regulation 7 of the SEBI(Stock Broker and Sub Broker) Regulations, 1992. (hereinafter referred to as “Broker Regulations”).
3 4. A copy of the enquiry report along with show cause notice dated January 13, 2006 was forwarded to the broker, in terms of Regulation 13 (2) and 13(5) of the Enquiry Regulations advising it to show cause as to why higher penalty should not be imposed against it then that recommended by the Enquiry Officer.
4 8. I find that the investigation report has not given any evidence in support of the allegation that there was a connivance of the broker with their client so as to give an inference that it has indulged in circular trades and was thus instrumental in creating artificial volumes in the scrip which distorted the market equilibrium of the shares. Also no evidence has been given showing that the broker knew that their client was indulging in circular trading, manipulation etc. or showing that the broker knew the relationship of their client with other clients. I note that the investigation report also does not bring out any relationship of the group of clients with the broker. I further note that the investigation report does not bring out any attempts at synchronization of trades by the involved brokers which can be one indication of connivance. However, I am of the view that the broker should have been alerted by the prolonged trading by the client in an illiquid scrip by making necessary enquiries and discontinued trading in the said scrip.
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/TCN/137/IVD1/JAN/09. 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.