This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Dilip Champalal Jain. The document provides details of SEBI's investigation which found that Jain executed a large number of synchronized and reversal trades in shares of Adani Exports Ltd. on the National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange, along with other entities, in a manner that artificially impacted the price and volume of the shares. SEBI has issued a show cause notice to Jain and is proceeding with an inquiry ex-parte as Jain failed to avail multiple opportunities for a personal hearing to respond to the allegations.
Adjudication Order in respect of Tejas Ghelani in the matter of Ms. Adani Exp...Hindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Tejas Ghelani. It summarizes the facts of the case, including that SEBI investigated suspicious trading in Adani Exports shares from November to December 2003. It found that Tejas Ghelani engaged in 228 synchronized or reversed trades on the National Stock Exchange and 128 such trades on the Bombay Stock Exchange, along with other entities, in a manner that violated prohibitions against price manipulation. The order considers whether penalties should be imposed on Ghelani under relevant SEBI acts.
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Tejas Ghelani. It summarizes the facts of the case, including that SEBI investigated suspicious trading in Adani Exports shares from November to December 2003. It found that Tejas Ghelani executed over 200 synchronized or reversed trades through two brokerage firms, accounting for over 7% of total trading volume. These trades appeared intended to artificially influence the share price, rather than transfer ownership. The order considers whether this violated market manipulation regulations and deserves monetary penalties.
The document summarizes an investigation and adjudication order by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding potential market manipulation in the trading of shares of Adani Enterprises Ltd. (AEL) in late 2003. It is alleged that Ms. Falguni Shah engaged in synchronized circular/reversal trading of AEL shares through two sub-brokers, which artificially increased the share price and volume. The document provides details of Ms. Shah's trades and findings that her trading patterns violated securities regulations by creating a false appearance of trading and manipulating the share price. An adjudicating officer was appointed to determine if penalties should be imposed on Ms. Shah under relevant SEBI acts and regulations.
Adjudication Order in respect of Falguni Shah in the matter of Adani Enterpri...Hindenburg Research
The document summarizes an investigation and adjudication order by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding potential market manipulation in the trading of shares of Adani Enterprises Ltd. (AEL) in late 2003. It is alleged that Ms. Falguni Shah engaged in synchronized circular/reversal trading of AEL shares through two sub-brokers, which artificially increased the share price and volume. The document provides details of Ms. Shah's trades and findings that her trading patterns violated securities regulations by creating a false appearance of trading and manipulating the share price. An adjudicating officer was appointed to determine if penalties should be imposed on Ms. Shah under relevant SEBI acts and regulations.
Adjudication Order in respect of Manoj T Shah in the matter of Ms. Adani Ente...Hindenburg Research
The document describes an investigation conducted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into suspicious trading activity in the shares of Adani Enterprises Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI found that Manoj T Shah traded shares of the company through a broker in a manner that involved synchronization and reversal trades with other entities, creating artificial volumes. This summary order finds that Shah violated securities market regulations through manipulative trades and orders monetary penalties against him.
Adjudication Order in respect of Ms. E Stocks Inc in the matter of Adani Expo...Hindenburg Research
The document summarizes an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into suspicious trading activity in the shares of Adani Exports Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI found evidence of synchronized/reversal trades and artificial inflation of trading volume and price. The Noticee, E Stocks Inc, a sub-broker, is alleged to have violated securities regulations through its trading on behalf of client Dilip Jain, including entering into 45 structured/synchronized/reversal trades totaling 77,053 shares on the National Stock Exchange. A show cause notice was issued and hearings held, in which E Stocks denied any wrongdoing or awareness of manipulative intent by its client.
Adjudication Order in respect of Ms. E Stocks Inc in the matter of Adani Expo...Hindenburg Research
The document summarizes an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into suspicious trading activity in the shares of Adani Exports Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI found evidence of synchronized/reversal trades and artificial inflation of trading volume and price. The Noticee, E Stocks Inc, a sub-broker, is alleged to have violated securities regulations through its trading on behalf of client Dilip Jain, including entering into 45 structured/synchronized/reversal trades totaling 77,053 shares on the National Stock Exchange. A show cause notice was issued and hearings held, in which E Stocks denied any wrongdoing or awareness of manipulative intent by its client.
The document summarizes an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into suspicious trading activity in the shares of Adani Exports Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI found evidence of synchronized/reversal trades and artificial inflation of trading volume and price. The Noticee, E Stocks Inc, a sub-broker, is alleged to have violated securities regulations through its trading on behalf of client Dilip Jain, including entering into 45 structured/synchronized/reversal trades totaling 77,053 shares on the National Stock Exchange. A show cause notice was issued and hearings held, in which E Stocks denied any wrongdoing or awareness of manipulative intent by its client.
Adjudication Order in respect of Tejas Ghelani in the matter of Ms. Adani Exp...Hindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Tejas Ghelani. It summarizes the facts of the case, including that SEBI investigated suspicious trading in Adani Exports shares from November to December 2003. It found that Tejas Ghelani engaged in 228 synchronized or reversed trades on the National Stock Exchange and 128 such trades on the Bombay Stock Exchange, along with other entities, in a manner that violated prohibitions against price manipulation. The order considers whether penalties should be imposed on Ghelani under relevant SEBI acts.
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Tejas Ghelani. It summarizes the facts of the case, including that SEBI investigated suspicious trading in Adani Exports shares from November to December 2003. It found that Tejas Ghelani executed over 200 synchronized or reversed trades through two brokerage firms, accounting for over 7% of total trading volume. These trades appeared intended to artificially influence the share price, rather than transfer ownership. The order considers whether this violated market manipulation regulations and deserves monetary penalties.
The document summarizes an investigation and adjudication order by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding potential market manipulation in the trading of shares of Adani Enterprises Ltd. (AEL) in late 2003. It is alleged that Ms. Falguni Shah engaged in synchronized circular/reversal trading of AEL shares through two sub-brokers, which artificially increased the share price and volume. The document provides details of Ms. Shah's trades and findings that her trading patterns violated securities regulations by creating a false appearance of trading and manipulating the share price. An adjudicating officer was appointed to determine if penalties should be imposed on Ms. Shah under relevant SEBI acts and regulations.
Adjudication Order in respect of Falguni Shah in the matter of Adani Enterpri...Hindenburg Research
The document summarizes an investigation and adjudication order by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding potential market manipulation in the trading of shares of Adani Enterprises Ltd. (AEL) in late 2003. It is alleged that Ms. Falguni Shah engaged in synchronized circular/reversal trading of AEL shares through two sub-brokers, which artificially increased the share price and volume. The document provides details of Ms. Shah's trades and findings that her trading patterns violated securities regulations by creating a false appearance of trading and manipulating the share price. An adjudicating officer was appointed to determine if penalties should be imposed on Ms. Shah under relevant SEBI acts and regulations.
Adjudication Order in respect of Manoj T Shah in the matter of Ms. Adani Ente...Hindenburg Research
The document describes an investigation conducted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into suspicious trading activity in the shares of Adani Enterprises Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI found that Manoj T Shah traded shares of the company through a broker in a manner that involved synchronization and reversal trades with other entities, creating artificial volumes. This summary order finds that Shah violated securities market regulations through manipulative trades and orders monetary penalties against him.
Adjudication Order in respect of Ms. E Stocks Inc in the matter of Adani Expo...Hindenburg Research
The document summarizes an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into suspicious trading activity in the shares of Adani Exports Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI found evidence of synchronized/reversal trades and artificial inflation of trading volume and price. The Noticee, E Stocks Inc, a sub-broker, is alleged to have violated securities regulations through its trading on behalf of client Dilip Jain, including entering into 45 structured/synchronized/reversal trades totaling 77,053 shares on the National Stock Exchange. A show cause notice was issued and hearings held, in which E Stocks denied any wrongdoing or awareness of manipulative intent by its client.
Adjudication Order in respect of Ms. E Stocks Inc in the matter of Adani Expo...Hindenburg Research
The document summarizes an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into suspicious trading activity in the shares of Adani Exports Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI found evidence of synchronized/reversal trades and artificial inflation of trading volume and price. The Noticee, E Stocks Inc, a sub-broker, is alleged to have violated securities regulations through its trading on behalf of client Dilip Jain, including entering into 45 structured/synchronized/reversal trades totaling 77,053 shares on the National Stock Exchange. A show cause notice was issued and hearings held, in which E Stocks denied any wrongdoing or awareness of manipulative intent by its client.
The document summarizes an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into suspicious trading activity in the shares of Adani Exports Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI found evidence of synchronized/reversal trades and artificial inflation of trading volume and price. The Noticee, E Stocks Inc, a sub-broker, is alleged to have violated securities regulations through its trading on behalf of client Dilip Jain, including entering into 45 structured/synchronized/reversal trades totaling 77,053 shares on the National Stock Exchange. A show cause notice was issued and hearings held, in which E Stocks denied any wrongdoing or awareness of manipulative intent by its client.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Fincom Limited in the matter of Adan...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding potential violations of securities laws by Sanchay Fincom Limited. It summarizes that SEBI investigated sharp price and volume increases in Adani Exports Ltd stock and found over 30% of trades involved apparent synchronization or reversal between brokers and clients. Specifically, Sanchay Fincom executed 128 synchronized/reversal trades with another broker on behalf of a common client, accounting for up to 14% of daily volume on some days. This activity appeared aimed at artificially impacting the stock price. The order considers whether this violated unfair trade practice and broker conduct regulations.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Fincom Limited in the matter of Adan...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding potential violations of securities trading regulations by Sanchay Fincom Limited. It summarizes that SEBI investigated sharp price and volume increases in Adani Exports Ltd stock and found over 30% of trades involved circular/synchronized/reversal trades between certain brokers and clients. Specifically, Sanchay Fincom Limited executed 128 synchronized/reversal trades with another broker on behalf of a common client, accounting for up to 14% of daily volume. This activity violated provisions prohibiting fraudulent trades and maintaining market integrity.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Fincom Limited.pdfHindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Sanchay Fincom Limited (SFL). SEBI investigated suspicious trading in Adani Exports Ltd shares from November-December 2003. It was alleged that SFL, while acting as a broker for client Tejas Ghelani, engaged in synchronized trades and reversal trades to artificially impact the stock price, in violation of prohibited fraudulent and unfair trade practices. SFL denied the allegations, stating it merely executed client orders and the trades were small relative to total market activity. SEBI must determine if SFL violated regulations and if penalties are warranted.
Adjudication Order in respect of ESS ESS Intermediaries (1).pdfHindenburg Research
The document describes an investigation conducted by SEBI into trading of shares of Adani Enterprises Ltd. during November-December 2003 due to a sharp rise in price and volume. The investigation found that certain entities, including ESS ESS Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd., engaged in synchronized reversal/circular trading to artificially inflate trading volumes and manipulate share prices. ESS ESS is alleged to have violated securities regulations by undertaking such trades through two different brokers on the same days to engage in non-genuine transactions without the intent of real ownership change. A show cause notice was issued and hearings were held, but ESS ESS denied any wrongdoing.
Adjudication Order in respect of Samir P Shah in the matter of Adani Enterpri...Hindenburg Research
The document summarizes an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into potential market manipulation related to trading of shares in Adani Enterprises Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI alleges that Samir P. Shah, through his company ESS ESS Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd., engaged in synchronized/circular trading on both sides of transactions, creating artificial volume and price movements. Over multiple trading days, Shah traded as a buying client through one broker while simultaneously trading as a selling client through another broker, in amounts totaling around 145,450 shares and comprising up to 37% of daily volume on some dates. SEBI has issued Shah a show cause notice and is considering if penalties should
The document summarizes an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into alleged stock price manipulation through synchronized/circular trading in the shares of Adani Enterprises Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI alleges that Samir Shah, through his company ESS ESS Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd., engaged in such trading on both sides of transactions, violating securities regulations. Shah attended a hearing and stated he held shares since 2002-03 and did regular jobbing transactions but had no other submissions. SEBI is considering if Shah violated regulations and if penalties should be imposed.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Finvest Limited in the matter of Ada...Hindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Sanchay Finvest Limited. It summarizes that SEBI investigated synchronized and reversal trades in a company's stock that artificially impacted the price. Sanchay Finvest traded on behalf of a client who engaged in 228 such trades. The order finds evidence the trades were intended to manipulate the market and that Sanchay Finvest violated securities regulations regarding fraudulent and unfair trading practices.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Finvest Limited in the matter of Ada...Hindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities regulations by Sanchay Finvest Limited. It summarizes that SEBI investigated synchronized and reversal trades in a company's stock that artificially impacted the price. Sanchay Finvest traded on behalf of a client who engaged in 228 such trades. The order finds evidence the trades were intended to manipulate the market and that Sanchay Finvest violated securities regulations regarding fraudulent and unfair trading practices.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Finvest Limited.pdfHindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities regulations by Sanchay Finvest Limited. It summarizes that SEBI investigated synchronized and reversal trades in a company's stock that artificially impacted the price. Sanchay Finvest traded on behalf of a client who engaged in 228 such trades. The order finds evidence the trades were intended to manipulate the market and that Sanchay Finvest violated securities regulations regarding fraudulent and unfair trading practices.
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India imposing a monetary penalty on Haresh Posnak for fraudulent trading in shares of Adani Exports Ltd. The order finds that Posnak engaged in synchronized and reversal trades that created artificial volume and distorted the market price without any change in beneficial ownership. As Posnak did not respond to the allegations, the charges were deemed admitted. Considering the fraudulent nature of the trading and factors specified in the SEBI Act, a penalty of 100,000 rupees was imposed.
Adjudication Order against Shri Haresh Posnak in the matter of Adani Exports ...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India imposing a monetary penalty on Haresh Posnak for fraudulent trading in shares of Adani Exports Ltd. The order finds that Posnak engaged in synchronized and reversal trades that created artificial volume and distorted the market price without any change in beneficial ownership. As Posnak did not respond to the allegations, the charges were deemed admitted. Considering the fraudulent nature of the trading and factors specified in the SEBI Act, a penalty of 100,000 rupees was imposed.
Adjudication Order in respect of Mangeram S. Sharma in the matter of Ms. Adan...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Mangeram S. Sharma. It finds that Mr. Sharma engaged in synchronized and reversal trades of company shares with other entities in a manner that inflated the share price artificially. These trades made up over 15% of total market volume for the shares during the period investigated. The order issues notices of hearings to Mr. Sharma but he does not respond or appear at multiple hearing dates. The adjudicating officer proceeds with the case ex-parte and finds that Mr. Sharma violated various sections of securities market regulations regarding fraudulent and unfair trading practices.
Adjudication Order against Shri Sunil Purohit in the matter of Adani Exports ...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) against Sunil Purohit for alleged violations of securities trading regulations. SEBI investigated Purohit's trading in the shares of Adani Exports Ltd during two periods in 2004-2005 and found that his trades created artificial volume and prices without real change in ownership. Purohit did not respond to the show cause notice or request for a hearing. Based on evidence of reversal trades and circular trading, the adjudicating officer found Purohit guilty of fraudulent trades that violated securities market regulations.
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) against Sunil Purohit for alleged violations of securities trading regulations. SEBI investigated Purohit's trading in the shares of Adani Exports Ltd during two periods in 2004-2005 and found that his trades created artificial volume and prices without real change in ownership. Purohit did not respond to the show cause notice or request for a hearing. Based on the evidence, the adjudicating officer found Purohit guilty of fraudulent trades that violated securities market regulations.
Adjudication order against Ms Rajesh N Jhaveri in the matter of Adani Exports...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations of securities regulations by Rajesh N Jhaveri. SEBI investigated suspicious trading in the shares of Adani Exports Limited, finding evidence of synchronized and reversed trades intended to artificially influence the share price. Jhaveri, as a sub-broker, executed large trades for a client engaged in this suspicious activity. SEBI found Jhaveri violated regulations prohibiting fraudulent and manipulative trades, and the broker code of conduct, by facilitating the client's trades without properly ensuring their purpose was legitimate. As violations were established, SEBI was entitled to impose a monetary penalty on Jhaveri per
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations of securities regulations by Rajesh N Jhaveri, a sub-broker. SEBI investigated suspicious trading in the shares of Adani Exports Limited, finding evidence of synchronized circular trading intended to manipulate prices and volumes. Jhaveri executed trades on behalf of a client, Manoj Shah, that appeared intended to inflate prices without real change in ownership. SEBI found Jhaveri violated regulations prohibiting fraudulent and unfair trading practices as well as its code of conduct for sub-brokers, which requires integrity and care to avoid manipulation. As violations were established, SEBI determined penalties were warranted.
Adjudication order against Ms Rajendra Jayantilal Shah in the matter of Adani...Hindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations committed by Rajendra Jayantilal Shah, a sub-broker. SEBI investigated trading in the shares of Adani Exports Limited and alleged that through collusion, certain entities created artificial volumes and prices in the stock. It was alleged that Shah, trading for a client, engaged in synchronized and reversed trades that lacked real beneficial ownership changes and aimed to manipulate the stock price and volume. Shah claimed his client was a jobber and he had no reason to suspect wrongdoing. However, SEBI found Shah violated regulations against fraudulent trades and failed to properly oversee his client's suspicious pattern of trading. Shah was
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations committed by Rajendra Jayantilal Shah, a sub-broker. SEBI investigated trading in the shares of Adani Exports Limited and alleged that through collusion, certain entities created artificial volumes and prices in the stock. It was alleged that Shah, trading for a client, engaged in synchronized and reversed trades that lacked real beneficial ownership changes and aimed to manipulate the stock price and volume. Shah claimed his client was a jobber and he had no reason to suspect wrongdoing. However, SEBI found Shah facilitated manipulation in violation of regulations based on trading patterns and failed to properly oversee his client's activities.
Adjudication order against Ms Rajendra Jayantilal Shah (1).pdfHindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations committed by Rajendra Jayantilal Shah, a sub-broker. SEBI investigated trading in the shares of Adani Exports Limited and alleged that through collusion, certain entities created artificial volumes and prices in the stock. It was alleged that Shah, trading for a client, engaged in synchronized and reversed trades that lacked real beneficial ownership changes and aimed to manipulate the stock price and volume. Shah claimed his client was a jobber and he had no reason to suspect wrongdoing. However, SEBI found Shah violated regulations against fraudulent trades and failed to properly oversee his client's suspicious pattern of trading. Shah was
This SEC complaint alleges that Stephen Burns, former CEO of electric vehicle company Lordstown Motors, made negligent and materially inaccurate statements about pre-orders for Lordstown's pickup truck. Specifically, Lordstown claimed to have over 27,000 pre-orders from commercial fleets based on non-binding letters of intent, but the company had no effective processes for vetting customers or tracking pre-orders. The SEC alleges Burns' statements about pre-orders created an unrealistic depiction of demand in violation of securities laws.
The document is a letter from Nathan Anderson to the Board of Directors, Executives and Auditors of Tingo Group Inc. listing 38 questions regarding Tingo Group's business operations and financials. The questions raise serious doubts about the legitimacy of Tingo's reported revenues, customer and supplier relationships, licenses and permits. Key issues highlighted include a lack of evidence for Tingo's claimed cash balances, inventory, export volumes and mobile network operations.
More Related Content
Similar to Adjudication Order in respect of Dilip Champalal Jain.pdf
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Fincom Limited in the matter of Adan...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding potential violations of securities laws by Sanchay Fincom Limited. It summarizes that SEBI investigated sharp price and volume increases in Adani Exports Ltd stock and found over 30% of trades involved apparent synchronization or reversal between brokers and clients. Specifically, Sanchay Fincom executed 128 synchronized/reversal trades with another broker on behalf of a common client, accounting for up to 14% of daily volume on some days. This activity appeared aimed at artificially impacting the stock price. The order considers whether this violated unfair trade practice and broker conduct regulations.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Fincom Limited in the matter of Adan...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding potential violations of securities trading regulations by Sanchay Fincom Limited. It summarizes that SEBI investigated sharp price and volume increases in Adani Exports Ltd stock and found over 30% of trades involved circular/synchronized/reversal trades between certain brokers and clients. Specifically, Sanchay Fincom Limited executed 128 synchronized/reversal trades with another broker on behalf of a common client, accounting for up to 14% of daily volume. This activity violated provisions prohibiting fraudulent trades and maintaining market integrity.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Fincom Limited.pdfHindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Sanchay Fincom Limited (SFL). SEBI investigated suspicious trading in Adani Exports Ltd shares from November-December 2003. It was alleged that SFL, while acting as a broker for client Tejas Ghelani, engaged in synchronized trades and reversal trades to artificially impact the stock price, in violation of prohibited fraudulent and unfair trade practices. SFL denied the allegations, stating it merely executed client orders and the trades were small relative to total market activity. SEBI must determine if SFL violated regulations and if penalties are warranted.
Adjudication Order in respect of ESS ESS Intermediaries (1).pdfHindenburg Research
The document describes an investigation conducted by SEBI into trading of shares of Adani Enterprises Ltd. during November-December 2003 due to a sharp rise in price and volume. The investigation found that certain entities, including ESS ESS Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd., engaged in synchronized reversal/circular trading to artificially inflate trading volumes and manipulate share prices. ESS ESS is alleged to have violated securities regulations by undertaking such trades through two different brokers on the same days to engage in non-genuine transactions without the intent of real ownership change. A show cause notice was issued and hearings were held, but ESS ESS denied any wrongdoing.
Adjudication Order in respect of Samir P Shah in the matter of Adani Enterpri...Hindenburg Research
The document summarizes an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into potential market manipulation related to trading of shares in Adani Enterprises Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI alleges that Samir P. Shah, through his company ESS ESS Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd., engaged in synchronized/circular trading on both sides of transactions, creating artificial volume and price movements. Over multiple trading days, Shah traded as a buying client through one broker while simultaneously trading as a selling client through another broker, in amounts totaling around 145,450 shares and comprising up to 37% of daily volume on some dates. SEBI has issued Shah a show cause notice and is considering if penalties should
The document summarizes an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) into alleged stock price manipulation through synchronized/circular trading in the shares of Adani Enterprises Ltd. during November-December 2003. SEBI alleges that Samir Shah, through his company ESS ESS Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd., engaged in such trading on both sides of transactions, violating securities regulations. Shah attended a hearing and stated he held shares since 2002-03 and did regular jobbing transactions but had no other submissions. SEBI is considering if Shah violated regulations and if penalties should be imposed.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Finvest Limited in the matter of Ada...Hindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Sanchay Finvest Limited. It summarizes that SEBI investigated synchronized and reversal trades in a company's stock that artificially impacted the price. Sanchay Finvest traded on behalf of a client who engaged in 228 such trades. The order finds evidence the trades were intended to manipulate the market and that Sanchay Finvest violated securities regulations regarding fraudulent and unfair trading practices.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Finvest Limited in the matter of Ada...Hindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities regulations by Sanchay Finvest Limited. It summarizes that SEBI investigated synchronized and reversal trades in a company's stock that artificially impacted the price. Sanchay Finvest traded on behalf of a client who engaged in 228 such trades. The order finds evidence the trades were intended to manipulate the market and that Sanchay Finvest violated securities regulations regarding fraudulent and unfair trading practices.
Adjudication Order in respect of Sanchay Finvest Limited.pdfHindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities regulations by Sanchay Finvest Limited. It summarizes that SEBI investigated synchronized and reversal trades in a company's stock that artificially impacted the price. Sanchay Finvest traded on behalf of a client who engaged in 228 such trades. The order finds evidence the trades were intended to manipulate the market and that Sanchay Finvest violated securities regulations regarding fraudulent and unfair trading practices.
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India imposing a monetary penalty on Haresh Posnak for fraudulent trading in shares of Adani Exports Ltd. The order finds that Posnak engaged in synchronized and reversal trades that created artificial volume and distorted the market price without any change in beneficial ownership. As Posnak did not respond to the allegations, the charges were deemed admitted. Considering the fraudulent nature of the trading and factors specified in the SEBI Act, a penalty of 100,000 rupees was imposed.
Adjudication Order against Shri Haresh Posnak in the matter of Adani Exports ...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India imposing a monetary penalty on Haresh Posnak for fraudulent trading in shares of Adani Exports Ltd. The order finds that Posnak engaged in synchronized and reversal trades that created artificial volume and distorted the market price without any change in beneficial ownership. As Posnak did not respond to the allegations, the charges were deemed admitted. Considering the fraudulent nature of the trading and factors specified in the SEBI Act, a penalty of 100,000 rupees was imposed.
Adjudication Order in respect of Mangeram S. Sharma in the matter of Ms. Adan...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding alleged violations of securities trading regulations by Mangeram S. Sharma. It finds that Mr. Sharma engaged in synchronized and reversal trades of company shares with other entities in a manner that inflated the share price artificially. These trades made up over 15% of total market volume for the shares during the period investigated. The order issues notices of hearings to Mr. Sharma but he does not respond or appear at multiple hearing dates. The adjudicating officer proceeds with the case ex-parte and finds that Mr. Sharma violated various sections of securities market regulations regarding fraudulent and unfair trading practices.
Adjudication Order against Shri Sunil Purohit in the matter of Adani Exports ...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) against Sunil Purohit for alleged violations of securities trading regulations. SEBI investigated Purohit's trading in the shares of Adani Exports Ltd during two periods in 2004-2005 and found that his trades created artificial volume and prices without real change in ownership. Purohit did not respond to the show cause notice or request for a hearing. Based on evidence of reversal trades and circular trading, the adjudicating officer found Purohit guilty of fraudulent trades that violated securities market regulations.
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) against Sunil Purohit for alleged violations of securities trading regulations. SEBI investigated Purohit's trading in the shares of Adani Exports Ltd during two periods in 2004-2005 and found that his trades created artificial volume and prices without real change in ownership. Purohit did not respond to the show cause notice or request for a hearing. Based on the evidence, the adjudicating officer found Purohit guilty of fraudulent trades that violated securities market regulations.
Adjudication order against Ms Rajesh N Jhaveri in the matter of Adani Exports...Hindenburg Research
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations of securities regulations by Rajesh N Jhaveri. SEBI investigated suspicious trading in the shares of Adani Exports Limited, finding evidence of synchronized and reversed trades intended to artificially influence the share price. Jhaveri, as a sub-broker, executed large trades for a client engaged in this suspicious activity. SEBI found Jhaveri violated regulations prohibiting fraudulent and manipulative trades, and the broker code of conduct, by facilitating the client's trades without properly ensuring their purpose was legitimate. As violations were established, SEBI was entitled to impose a monetary penalty on Jhaveri per
The document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations of securities regulations by Rajesh N Jhaveri, a sub-broker. SEBI investigated suspicious trading in the shares of Adani Exports Limited, finding evidence of synchronized circular trading intended to manipulate prices and volumes. Jhaveri executed trades on behalf of a client, Manoj Shah, that appeared intended to inflate prices without real change in ownership. SEBI found Jhaveri violated regulations prohibiting fraudulent and unfair trading practices as well as its code of conduct for sub-brokers, which requires integrity and care to avoid manipulation. As violations were established, SEBI determined penalties were warranted.
Adjudication order against Ms Rajendra Jayantilal Shah in the matter of Adani...Hindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations committed by Rajendra Jayantilal Shah, a sub-broker. SEBI investigated trading in the shares of Adani Exports Limited and alleged that through collusion, certain entities created artificial volumes and prices in the stock. It was alleged that Shah, trading for a client, engaged in synchronized and reversed trades that lacked real beneficial ownership changes and aimed to manipulate the stock price and volume. Shah claimed his client was a jobber and he had no reason to suspect wrongdoing. However, SEBI found Shah violated regulations against fraudulent trades and failed to properly oversee his client's suspicious pattern of trading. Shah was
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations committed by Rajendra Jayantilal Shah, a sub-broker. SEBI investigated trading in the shares of Adani Exports Limited and alleged that through collusion, certain entities created artificial volumes and prices in the stock. It was alleged that Shah, trading for a client, engaged in synchronized and reversed trades that lacked real beneficial ownership changes and aimed to manipulate the stock price and volume. Shah claimed his client was a jobber and he had no reason to suspect wrongdoing. However, SEBI found Shah facilitated manipulation in violation of regulations based on trading patterns and failed to properly oversee his client's activities.
Adjudication order against Ms Rajendra Jayantilal Shah (1).pdfHindenburg Research
This document is an adjudication order from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding alleged violations committed by Rajendra Jayantilal Shah, a sub-broker. SEBI investigated trading in the shares of Adani Exports Limited and alleged that through collusion, certain entities created artificial volumes and prices in the stock. It was alleged that Shah, trading for a client, engaged in synchronized and reversed trades that lacked real beneficial ownership changes and aimed to manipulate the stock price and volume. Shah claimed his client was a jobber and he had no reason to suspect wrongdoing. However, SEBI found Shah violated regulations against fraudulent trades and failed to properly oversee his client's suspicious pattern of trading. Shah was
Similar to Adjudication Order in respect of Dilip Champalal Jain.pdf (20)
This SEC complaint alleges that Stephen Burns, former CEO of electric vehicle company Lordstown Motors, made negligent and materially inaccurate statements about pre-orders for Lordstown's pickup truck. Specifically, Lordstown claimed to have over 27,000 pre-orders from commercial fleets based on non-binding letters of intent, but the company had no effective processes for vetting customers or tracking pre-orders. The SEC alleges Burns' statements about pre-orders created an unrealistic depiction of demand in violation of securities laws.
The document is a letter from Nathan Anderson to the Board of Directors, Executives and Auditors of Tingo Group Inc. listing 38 questions regarding Tingo Group's business operations and financials. The questions raise serious doubts about the legitimacy of Tingo's reported revenues, customer and supplier relationships, licenses and permits. Key issues highlighted include a lack of evidence for Tingo's claimed cash balances, inventory, export volumes and mobile network operations.
1) Osirius Group LLC filed a complaint against Ideanomics Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Osirius provided engineering services to Via Motors from July 2022 to December 2022, invoicing Via Motors monthly. Via Motors failed to pay the invoices, owing Osirius over $2 million.
2) Ideanomics acquired Via Motors in January 2023 and had previously agreed to pay any remaining debt owed by Via Motors to Osirius. However, Ideanomics failed to pay the outstanding amount owed for Osirius' services.
3) Osirius is suing Ideanomics for breach of contract and
This 6-page legal document outlines the charges in a criminal case. It describes the defendant and their alleged crimes, which include wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Further details are provided about the scheme, the victims impacted, and evidence collected. If convicted on all counts, the defendant faces a maximum penalty of 32 years in prison and $1 million in fines.
1) Acuitas Capital invested $20 million in Ideanomics in exchange for preferred stock and warrants that were convertible into Ideanomics common stock. However, Ideanomics has now refused to honor Acuitas Capital's requests to convert these securities, in breach of their agreement.
2) Ideanomics claims the investment agreement is "null and void" due to unrelated allegations against the CEO of Acuitas Capital, but these allegations do not excuse Ideanomics' contractual obligations.
3) Prompt relief is needed because Ideanomics has admitted it may not be able to continue as a going concern. Unless ordered to honor the conversion requests, the value of Acuitas Capital's remaining
This document outlines the terms and conditions of a private offering of $750 million in senior secured notes issued by Adani Green Energy Limited. The notes will pay 4.375% annual interest and mature in 2024. The notes are being offered only to qualified institutional buyers in the US and offshore purchasers in reliance on exemptions from securities registration laws. The notes will be listed on the Singapore Exchange and India INX and secured by certain assets of the issuer described in security documents. The proceeds are subject to restrictions on use and transfer.
This document is an annual return form for a private company limited by shares called Milestone Tradelinks Private Limited. It provides details about the company's registration, activities, shareholding, directors and key managerial personnel, meetings, and attendance of directors. Some key details include the company's registered office in Ahmedabad, its main business activity of wholesale trading, total paid up capital of Rs. 407,000, and that directors Rajesh Rameshchandra Vora and Manish Amrutlal Shah each hold 0 shares as of the financial year end.
The auditor's report provides an unmodified opinion on the financial statements of Pmc Projects (India) Private Limited for the period 01/04/2013 to 31/03/2014. The auditor found that the company has maintained proper records of fixed assets, inventories and loans. Internal control procedures for purchase, sale and fixed assets were adequate. The company has not accepted any deposits from the public. Statutory dues have generally been regularly paid, with no material disputed amounts. No frauds were reported during the period.
Chang Chien-Ting holds significant beneficial ownership in PMC Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. through PMC Infra Limited, a company registered in Mauritius. Chang holds 100% of PMC Infra Limited and exercises his significant beneficial interest in PMC Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. by virtue of shares held in PMC Infra Limited. He declares this significant beneficial ownership in PMC Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. as required by Section 90(1) of the Companies Act of India. The declaration provides details of Chang such as his address, date of birth, occupation, and nationality. It specifies the nature of his indirect holding in PMC Projects (India) Pvt.
Adani Developers (later renamed Sunbourne) 2013 Annual Report.pdfHindenburg Research
The document is an auditor's report for Adani Developers Private Limited for the period of April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012. The auditor gave an unqualified opinion and did not note any qualifications, reservations or adverse remarks. Specifically, the auditor stated that the company maintained proper records of fixed assets, conducted physical verification of inventories, and complied with statutory dues payments. The auditor also confirmed the company had an adequate internal control and internal audit system.
This document contains a list of orders from the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) and adjudication orders from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) related to various Adani group companies, primarily Adani Exports Limited. The orders range from 2008 to 2019 and include matters related to stock market manipulation and insider trading involving several individuals and brokerage firms.
Vinod Adani - The Man Behind The Adani Group’s Offshore Deals (Morning Contex...Hindenburg Research
Vinod Adani is the elder brother of Gautam Adani, Asia's second richest man. Vinod oversees many of the Adani group's offshore deals and structures through companies based in tax havens like Mauritius and Cyprus. He has been involved in major deals like the Ambuja Cements acquisition and Total's investment in Adani Green Energy. However, the Adani group has previously denied Vinod's involvement. Vinod uses complex offshore structures that allow deals to be carried out without following all Indian laws, potentially reducing taxes. There are also ongoing legal issues regarding accusations of money laundering through Vinod's offshore companies that supplied equipment to Adani Power projects in India.
Krunal Trade & Investment Pvt Ltd is a private limited company incorporated in Mauritius on October 4, 2005 as a global business company. The company's registered office is located at Trustlink House in Floreal, Mauritius. The current directors are Adani Vinod Shantilal, Caillou Louis Ricardo, Mittra Subir, and Ramsagur Shailend. Trustlink International Limited serves as the company secretary.
Gardenia Trade and Investment Ltd is a private limited company incorporated on February 2nd, 2021. It operates as a global business company with its registered office in Mauritius. The company has three directors: Agowun Nihad Mohammad Akram, Mittra Subir, and Toorabally Shakill Ahmad. Amicorp (Mauritius) Limited serves as the company's management and secretarial services provider.
Birch Trade and Investment Ltd is a private limited company incorporated in Mauritius on October 19, 2021 as a global business company. The company has three directors: Agowun Nihad Mohammad Akram, Mittra Subir, and Toorabally Shakill Ahmad. Amicorp (Mauritius) Limited serves as the company's management company and secretary.
Athena Trade and Investments Pvt Ltd is a private limited company incorporated in Mauritius on July 18, 2017 for global business. The company has three directors: Mittra Subir from Dubai, Seewooruttun Indranathsingh from Mauritius, and Toorabally Shakill Ahmad from Mauritius. Amicorp (Mauritius) Limited serves as the company's management and secretarial services provider.
Flourishing Trade and Investment Ltd is a private limited global business company incorporated on August 18, 2017 in Mauritius. The company has three directors - Mittra Subir, Seewooruttun Indranathsingh, and Toorabally Shakill Ahmad. Amicorp (Mauritius) Limited serves as the company's management and secretary.
Delphinium Trade and Investment Ltd is a private limited company incorporated on February 2nd, 2021 in Mauritius for global business purposes. The company has three directors: Mittra Subir, Seewooruttun Indranathsingh, and Toorabally Shakill Ahmad. Amicorp (Mauritius) Limited serves as the company's management company and secretary.
Dome Trade and Investment Ltd is a private limited company incorporated in Mauritius on August 18, 2017 as a global business company. It has 4 directors: Adani Vinod Shantilal, Agowun Nihad Mohammad Akram, Mittra Subir, and Toorabally Shakill Ahmad. Amicorp (Mauritius) Limited serves as the company's management company and secretary, located at Level 6, Tower 1, NeXteracom Building in Ebene, Mauritius.
Endeavour Trade and Investment Ltd was incorporated on April 29, 2021 as a private limited company in Mauritius for global business. The company has 3 directors - Mittra Subir, Seewooruttun Indranathsingh, and Toorabally Shakill Ahmad. Amicorp (Mauritius) Limited serves as the management company and secretary since the company's incorporation.
Industrial Tech SW: Category Renewal and CreationChristian Dahlen
Every industrial revolution has created a new set of categories and a new set of players.
Multiple new technologies have emerged, but Samsara and C3.ai are only two companies which have gone public so far.
Manufacturing startups constitute the largest pipeline share of unicorns and IPO candidates in the SF Bay Area, and software startups dominate in Germany.
Top mailing list providers in the USA.pptxJeremyPeirce1
Discover the top mailing list providers in the USA, offering targeted lists, segmentation, and analytics to optimize your marketing campaigns and drive engagement.
Understanding User Needs and Satisfying ThemAggregage
https://www.productmanagementtoday.com/frs/26903918/understanding-user-needs-and-satisfying-them
We know we want to create products which our customers find to be valuable. Whether we label it as customer-centric or product-led depends on how long we've been doing product management. There are three challenges we face when doing this. The obvious challenge is figuring out what our users need; the non-obvious challenges are in creating a shared understanding of those needs and in sensing if what we're doing is meeting those needs.
In this webinar, we won't focus on the research methods for discovering user-needs. We will focus on synthesis of the needs we discover, communication and alignment tools, and how we operationalize addressing those needs.
Industry expert Scott Sehlhorst will:
• Introduce a taxonomy for user goals with real world examples
• Present the Onion Diagram, a tool for contextualizing task-level goals
• Illustrate how customer journey maps capture activity-level and task-level goals
• Demonstrate the best approach to selection and prioritization of user-goals to address
• Highlight the crucial benchmarks, observable changes, in ensuring fulfillment of customer needs
The Genesis of BriansClub.cm Famous Dark WEb PlatformSabaaSudozai
BriansClub.cm, a famous platform on the dark web, has become one of the most infamous carding marketplaces, specializing in the sale of stolen credit card data.
The 10 Most Influential Leaders Guiding Corporate Evolution, 2024.pdfthesiliconleaders
In the recent edition, The 10 Most Influential Leaders Guiding Corporate Evolution, 2024, The Silicon Leaders magazine gladly features Dejan Štancer, President of the Global Chamber of Business Leaders (GCBL), along with other leaders.
Discover timeless style with the 2022 Vintage Roman Numerals Men's Ring. Crafted from premium stainless steel, this 6mm wide ring embodies elegance and durability. Perfect as a gift, it seamlessly blends classic Roman numeral detailing with modern sophistication, making it an ideal accessory for any occasion.
https://rb.gy/usj1a2
At Techbox Square, in Singapore, we're not just creative web designers and developers, we're the driving force behind your brand identity. Contact us today.
Structural Design Process: Step-by-Step Guide for BuildingsChandresh Chudasama
The structural design process is explained: Follow our step-by-step guide to understand building design intricacies and ensure structural integrity. Learn how to build wonderful buildings with the help of our detailed information. Learn how to create structures with durability and reliability and also gain insights on ways of managing structures.
How are Lilac French Bulldogs Beauty Charming the World and Capturing Hearts....Lacey Max
“After being the most listed dog breed in the United States for 31
years in a row, the Labrador Retriever has dropped to second place
in the American Kennel Club's annual survey of the country's most
popular canines. The French Bulldog is the new top dog in the
United States as of 2022. The stylish puppy has ascended the
rankings in rapid time despite having health concerns and limited
color choices.”
Zodiac Signs and Food Preferences_ What Your Sign Says About Your Tastemy Pandit
Know what your zodiac sign says about your taste in food! Explore how the 12 zodiac signs influence your culinary preferences with insights from MyPandit. Dive into astrology and flavors!
How to Implement a Real Estate CRM SoftwareSalesTown
To implement a CRM for real estate, set clear goals, choose a CRM with key real estate features, and customize it to your needs. Migrate your data, train your team, and use automation to save time. Monitor performance, ensure data security, and use the CRM to enhance marketing. Regularly check its effectiveness to improve your business.
Storytelling is an incredibly valuable tool to share data and information. To get the most impact from stories there are a number of key ingredients. These are based on science and human nature. Using these elements in a story you can deliver information impactfully, ensure action and drive change.
HOW TO START UP A COMPANY A STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE.pdf46adnanshahzad
How to Start Up a Company: A Step-by-Step Guide Starting a company is an exciting adventure that combines creativity, strategy, and hard work. It can seem overwhelming at first, but with the right guidance, anyone can transform a great idea into a successful business. Let's dive into how to start up a company, from the initial spark of an idea to securing funding and launching your startup.
Introduction
Have you ever dreamed of turning your innovative idea into a thriving business? Starting a company involves numerous steps and decisions, but don't worry—we're here to help. Whether you're exploring how to start a startup company or wondering how to start up a small business, this guide will walk you through the process, step by step.
Adjudication Order in respect of Dilip Champalal Jain.pdf
1. Page 1 of 17
BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
[ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. VSS/AO-156/2009]
UNDER SECTION 15-I OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF
INDIA ACT, 1992 READ WITH RULE 5 OF SEBI (PROCEDURE FOR
HOLDING INQUIRY AND IMPOSING PENALTIES BY ADJUDICATING
OFFICER) RULES, 1995
In respect of
Dilip Champalal Jain
(PAN. Not Furnished)
FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF
1. Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as
“SEBI”) conducted investigation into trading in the scrip of Adani
Exports Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘AEL’) for the period from
November 27, 2003 to December 23, 2003 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘period of investigation’) due to sharp rise in price and volume
of the scrip on National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as ‘NSE’) and Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as ‘BSE’).
2. The role of the brokers, sub-brokers and their clients who had
traded in the scrip was scrutinized. It was observed during the
investigation that certain entities had indulged in synchronization of
deals/reversal trading/fictitious trading in the shares of AEL in such
2. Page 2 of 17
a manner that led to creation of artificial volume and impacted the
price of the scrip. The entities found to have been involved in the
alleged manipulation and against whom adjudication proceedings
were initiated are as under:-
Entities traded on BSE
Sl.
No.
Name of Broker Name of Sub-broker Name of Client
1 ASE Capital Rajender J Shah V&S Intermediaries
2 ASE Capital ESS ESS
Intermediaries
Samir P Shah
3 ASE Capital Rajesh N Jhaveri Falguni Shah
4 Naman Securities --- ESS ESS Intermedieries
5 Mangal Keshav E Stocks INC Dilip Champalal Jain
6 Vijay Bhagwandas --- Own/director’s account
7 Sanchay Fincom --- Tejas Ghelani
Entities traded on NSE
Sl.
No.
Name of Broker Name of Sub-broker Name of Client
1 Grishma Securities --- Rajesh N Jhaveri
2 Mangal Keshav E Stocks INC Dilip Champalal Jain
3 ASE Capital --- Manoj T Shah
4 Sanchay Finvest --- Tejas Ghelani
5 M.G. Capital (**) --- Bela H Kayastha
6 Inventure Growth (**) --- Mangiram S Sharma
(**)Administrative warning issued.
3. It was alleged that one of the entities, viz., Mr. Dilip Champalal Jain
(hereinafter referred to as “Noticee/Dilip”) who traded in the scrip
of AEL through M/s. E Stocks Inc (hereinafter referred to as “E
Stocks”), sub-broker in NSE and BSE affiliated to Mangal Keshav
Securities Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘MKSL/Broker’), member
NSE and BSE, on both the exchanges had violated the provisions
of regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 4(2)(e), 4(2)(g) and 4(2)(n) of
SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating
to Securities Markets) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as
“PFUTP Regulations”) and therefore, liable for monetary penalty
under sections 15HA and 15HB of Securities and Exchange Board
of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “SEBI Act”).
3. Page 3 of 17
APPOINTMENT OF ADJUDICATING OFFICER
4. Mr. Piyoosh Gupta was appointed as Adjudicating Officer vide
order dated December 14, 2005 under section 15 I of SEBI Act
read with rule 3 of SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and
Imposing Penalties by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) to inquire into and adjudge the
alleged violations of the provisions of SEBI Act and PFUTP
Regulations.
5. Consequent upon the transfer of Mr. Piyoosh Gupta, the
undersigned has been appointed as the Adjudicating Officer vide
Order dated November 19, 2007
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, HEARING AND REPLY
6. Show Cause Notice No. EAD/EAD-5/PG/68683/2006 dated May
31, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “SCN”) was issued to the
Noticee under rule 4(1) of the Rules to show cause as to why an
inquiry should not be held against the Noticee and penalty be not
imposed under sections 15HA and 15HB of SEBI Act for the
alleged violation specified in the said SCN. The Noticee
acknowledged the receipt of the same, but did not reply.
7. In the interest of natural justice and in order to conduct an inquiry
as per rule 4(3) of the Rules, the Noticee was granted an
opportunity of hearing on August 25, 2009 vide notice dated August
12, 2009. The Noticee acknowledged the receipt of the same.
However, no one appeared for the hearing. Another opportunity of
hearing was granted to the Noticee on October 08, 2009 vide notice
dated September 18, 2009. The same was received by the Noticee.
The Notice was also posted on SEBI website under the label
4. Page 4 of 17
captioned “unserved Notice/summons”. The Noticee called the
undersigned over phone and orally denied the allegations made
against him.
8. I am convinced that ample opportunities have been given to the
Noticee to explain his case. As per rule 4(7) of the Rules, if any
person fails neglects or refuses to appear as required by sub-rule
(3) before the Adjudicating Officer, he may proceed with the inquiry
in the absence of such person after recording the reasons therefor.
Despite having been given ample opportunities, the Noticee has
failed to avail the opportunity of personal hearing. I am, therefore,
compelled to proceed with the matter ex-parte based on the
material available on record.
CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS
9. I have carefully perused the documents available on record. The
issues that arise for consideration in the present case are :
a) Whether the Noticee had violated regulations 4 (1), 4(2)(a),
4(2)(b), 4(2)(e), 4(2)(g) and 4(2)(n) of PFUTP
Regulations?
b) Does the violation, if any, on the part of the Noticee attract
monetary penalty under sections 15HA of SEBI Act?
c) If so, what would be the monetary penalty that can be
imposed taking into consideration the factors mentioned in
section 15J of SEBI Act?
10. Before moving forward, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant
provisions of PFUTP Regulations, which reads as under:
5. Page 5 of 17
PFUTP Regulations
4. Prohibition of manipulative, fraudulent and unfair trade practices
(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of regulation3, no person shall
indulge in a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice in securities
(2) Dealing in securities shall be deemed to be a fraudulent or an unfair
trade practice if it involves fraud and may include all or any of the
following, namely: -
(a) indulging in an act which creates false or misleading
appearance of trading in the securities market;
(b) dealing in a security not intended to effect transfer of
beneficial ownership but intended to operate only as a device
to inflate, depress or cause fluctuations in the price of such
security for wrongful gain or avoidance of loss;
(c) …
(d) …
(e) any act or omission amounting to manipulation of the price
of a security;
(f) …
(g) entering into a transaction in securities without intention of
performing it or without intention of change of ownership of
such security.
(h) …
(i) …
(j) …
(k) …
(l) …
(m) …
(n) circular transactions in respect of a security entered into
between intermediaries in order to increase commission to
provide a false appearance of trading in such security or to
inflate, depress or cause fluctuations in the price of such
security;
11. On perusal of the documents available on record, I find the
following:
In respect of trades executed on NSE
• The price of the scrip increased from Rs.250.10 (on December
12, 2003) to Rs.448.80 (on December 19, 2003) in a span of 5
trading days.
• The total traded quantity of the scrip on NSE during the period of
investigation was 38,91,856 shares.
6. Page 6 of 17
• During the period of investigation, the Noticee along with other
brokers and clients entered into 228 synchronized/reversal trades
involving 2,96,943 shares (7.63% of the market gross during the
period of investigation). The details are as under:
S.
No.
Buy broker
name (sub-
broker)
Buying
client
Selling Broker
name (sub-
broker)
Selling
client
No. of
trades
Synchron
ized
quantity
No. of
days
traded
% Range of
synchronize
d deals to
qty traded
in the day
1. Grishma Sec Rajesh
Jhaveri
ASE Capital Manoj T
Shah
105 143440 11 22% to
42%
2. Mangal Keshav
(E Stocks INC)
Dilip C.
Jain
Sanchay
Finvest
Tejas
Ghelani
23 54654 9 2% to 16%
3. ASE Capital Manoj T
Shah
M G Capital Bela H
Kayastha
33 31450 3 28% to 29%
4. Mangal Keshav
(E Stocks INC)
Dilip C
Jain
Inventure
Growth
Mangiram
S Sharma
22 22399 10 2.98% to
8.44%
5. Inventure
Growth
Mangiram
S Sharma
Sanchay
Finvest
Tejas
Ghelani
10 18750 5 2.98% to
18.39%
6. Inventure
Growth
Mangiram
S Sharma
Kotak Sec. Mangiram
S Sharma
24 16250 7 1.39% to
8.44%
7. Grishma Sec. Rajesh
Jhaveri
M G Capital Bela H
Kayastha
11 10000 1 34.70%
TOTAL 228 296943
• Out of a total of 2,96,943 shares, 77,053 shares were traded by
the Noticee in 45 structured deals and reversal of trades. These
trades constituted 1.98% of total market volume in the shares of
AEL on NSE during the period of investigation.
• Out of these 45 structured/synchronized/reversal trades, the
Noticee trading through MKSL entered into 23 such deals with
Sanchay Finvest Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sanchay
Finvest’), trading on behalf of Tejas Ghelani, for 54,654 shares
during the period from December 8, 2003 to December 18, 2003
(majority of trades) and December 23, 2003 (2 trades). Out of
these 9 trading days, on 2 days, the synchronized/reversal trades
contributed to more than 10% of the day’s quantity traded, on 5
days, contribution was more than 5% of the day’s quantity traded.
These trades accounted for 1.40% of the gross quantity traded
during the entire period of investigation.
7. Page 7 of 17
• Out of 45 structured/synchronized/reversal trades, the Noticee
executed 22 such trades with Inventure Growth Securities Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Inventure’), trading on behalf of
Mangeram S Sharma, for 22,399 shares during the period from
November 27, 2003 to December 12, 2003. Contribution of these
trades to day’s quantity traded ranged from 2.98% to 8.44%.
These trades accounted for 0.58% of the gross quantity traded
during the period of investigation. Time difference between
placement of buy and sell orders in these trades was 0 to 2
seconds.
• Out of total of 45 synchronized trades on NSE by the Noticee,
more than 90% of the orders were placed with time difference of
less than 3 seconds and many of them were with zero time
difference. The order, limit prices and quantities were also
matched with those of the counter party broker/client in all these
trades. The quantity, rate matched and reversal of trades were
always with the same client.
• These clients had nil delivery positions.
In respect of trades executed on BSE
• The price of the scrip increased from Rs.209.55 (on November
27, 2003) to Rs.443.10 (on December 23, 2003) in a span of 19
trading days. The scrip touched a highest price of Rs.478.00 on
December 19, 2003.
• The total traded quantity in the shares of AEL on BSE during the
period of investigation was 11,32,400 shares.
• Out of 11,32,400 shares, 3,42,780 shares (30.27%) were traded
in circular/synchronized/reversal trades involving certain brokers,
sub-brokers and clients. The details are as under:
8. Page 8 of 17
Date Bought
Qty
Bought by
Client (sub-
broker/Broker)
Bought From
Client (Broker)
Sold
Qty
Sold by Client (sub-
broker/Broker)
Sold To Client
(Broker)
27.11.03
to
23.12.03
74450 ESS (ASE
Capital)
ESS (Naman
Sec.)
74500 ESS (ASE Capital) ESS (Naman
Sec.)
27.11.03
to
23.12.03
57475 Falguni Shah
(through Rajesh
N Jhaveri/ ASE
Capital)
V & S
Intermediaries
(through R J Shah
/ ASE Capital)
57490 Falguni Shah
(through Rajesh N
Jhaveri/ ASE Capital)
V & S
Intermediaries
(through R J
Shah / ASE
Capital)
27.11.03
to
23.12.03
23340 Dilip Champalal
Jain (through M/s
E Stocks/Mangal
Keshav)
Own A/c (Vijay
Bhagwandas)
25200 Dilip Champalal Jain
(through M/s E
Stocks/Mangal
Keshav)
Own A/c (Vijay
Bhagwandas)
27.11.03
to
23.12.03
16050 Dilip Champalal
Jain (through M/s
E Stocks/Mangal
Keshav)
Tejas Ghelani
(Sanchay Fincom)
14300 Dilip Champalal Jain
(through M/s E
Stocks/Mangal
Keshav)
Tejas Ghelani
(Sanchay
Fincom)
• A total of 349 synchronized/reversal trades were executed
amongst the Noticee, Sanchay Fincom and VBC for 78,890
shares (6.97% of the total market volume during the period of
investigation).
• Out of 349 trades, the Noticee and Sanchay Fincom executed
128 synchronized/reversal trades on 5 trading days during the
period from December 9, 2003 to December 18, 2003. It
generated a total volume of 30,350 shares accounting for 5.67%
of the total market volume during the same period.
• The Noticee and VBC executed 221 synchronized/reversal trades
for 48,540 shares.
• The synchronized/reversal trades of the Noticee accounted for
more than 14% of the daily volume on 4 days and between 6 to
8.7% on other trading days till December 19, 2003.
• For most trades, buy and sell orders were placed within a time
difference of 0 to 3 seconds of each other. The order limit prices
and quantities were also matching with those of the counterparty
broker in all the trades. The reversal of trades took place within
half an hour or one hour after execution of first set of trades.
9. Page 9 of 17
• The Noticee, VBC and Sanchay Fincom executed/entered into
reversal in trade transactions on 9th
, 10th
, 17th
, 18th
and 19th
December, 2003.
12. The Hon’ble SAT in Ketan Parekh Vs. Securities & Exchange Board of
India (Appeal No. 2 of 2004) held that in order to find out whether a
transaction has been executed with the intention to manipulate the
market or defeat its mechanism will depend upon the intention of
the parties which could be inferred from the attending
circumstances because direct evidence in such cases may not be
available. In the case of Ashok K Chaudhary v SEBI, Appeal No 69 of
2008, dated November 5, 2008, the Hon’ble SAT observed that
large number of reverse trades raises a presumption of
manipulative transactions. In Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd Vs
Chairman, SEBI, Appeal No. 54-57/2002, dated October 31, 2003,
the Hon’ble SAT observed that where there are too many
transactions over a period of time giving an impression that these
were all synchronized, the argument that the parties had no means
of knowing whether any entity controlled by the client is
simultaneously entering any contra order elsewhere for the reason
that in the online trading system, confidentiality of counter parties is
ensured, is untenable.
13. I find that the investigation did not establish any link (a) between
the Noticee and its broker/sub-broker (b) between the Noticee and
other brokers who had traded in the scrip (c) between the Noticee
and clients of other brokers who had traded in the scrip (d) between
Noticee and the company/directors of AEL.
14. However, the method and the manner in which the trades were
executed are the most important factors to be considered in these
10. Page 10 of 17
circumstances. The motive, thereafter, automatically falls in line.
Trades like cross deals and synchronized trades are executed on
the trading screen of a stock exchange and with proper delivery
versus payment system. Clearly in almost all the deals, the orders
are placed so as to ensure a matching of the buy and the sell
quantity and the buy and the sell price with the counter party. The
buy and the sell orders are placed at almost the same time
between the counter brokers, with a difference of a few seconds.
This proximity in the inputting of orders at the same price and for
the same quantity, results in getting them matched, such that there
is almost perfect matching in all the trades, with all the three
parameters, viz., quantity, price and most importantly, the time
required to conclude the trades, which to a large extent indicates
synchronization in the logging in of the orders, albeit executed on
the screen of the stock exchange.
15. This is what has transpired in the present case. A large number of
trades got matched regularly. The phenomenal regularity with
which the Noticee had indulged in such trades, leads one to
conclude, that these transactions were effectively meant to
manipulate the market. It is my considered belief that frequency of
such trades ensured consistent matching of the orders purely for
the purpose of projection of the volumes of the scrip in a way that
was not the market determined volumes but with a sinister motive
to induce other persons to invest in the said scrip.
16. In case an entity is alleged to have manipulated the market or
distorted the market equilibrium in terms of the PFUTP Regulations
and their acts are corroborated up to a certain extent by the
investigation findings, then the underlying intention of the said entity
is brought out. Furthermore, price manipulation does not only
11. Page 11 of 17
involve the manipulation in the prices of the scrip but also includes
building up of volumes. This is evident from the findings mentioned
above.
17. The fact is that had the aforesaid discussed trades been executed
in the normal course of business, the possibility of such perfect
matching would not have been possible. The buy and sell prices of
one entity were close to the buy/sell rates of the other entity in all
the settlements, such that the trades of these entities were always
matched. The transactions as pointed out in the tables earlier and
spread over a short period of time are definitely done with some
inbuilt component of ‘intent’ involved. Greater the number of such
synchronized trades, the larger is the chances of trades not being
genuine in nature, which is bound to affect the market equilibrium.
A trade can be executed on the screen and still be manipulative in
nature. Considering the number of such trades, it is clear that there
has been a gross misuse of the screen based trading system. It is
also to be stated that “intention” is inherent in all cases of
synchronized trading involving large scale price manipulation and
the same was also brought out in the earlier cited case of Nirmal
Bang Securities (P) Ltd. vs SEBI by the Hon’ble SAT whereby it
was observed that “Intention is reflected from the action of the
Appellant. Choosing selective time slots does not appear to be an
involuntary action.”
18. The Noticee by participating in the trading in this manner involved
in the execution of synchronized/reversal transactions created
artificial liquidity in the scrip and played a role in the manipulation of
the trading. In my view, the Noticee through the said artificial
trades interfered with the market equilibrium and thereby affected
the manipulation of price and volume of the said scrip. The trades
12. Page 12 of 17
executed herein by the Noticee were not the real trades as there
was no intention to change the beneficial ownership. When the
trades were inherently not genuine, I do not feel that it is necessary
to prove that investors had, in fact, got induced and bought and/or
sold on the basis of these trades. Similar views were expressed by
the Hon’ble SAT in its order dated 14.7.2006 in Ketan Parekh Vs.
SEBI wherein it had observed that “When a person takes part in or
enters into transactions in securities with the intention to artificially raise
or depress the price he thereby automatically induces the innocent
investors in the market to buy /sell their stocks. The buyer or the seller is
invariably influenced by the price of the stocks and if that is being
manipulated the person doing so is necessarily influencing the decision of
the buyer / seller thereby inducing him to buy or sell depending upon how
the market has been manipulated. We are therefore of the view that
inducement to any person to buy or sell securities is the necessary
consequence of manipulation and flows therefrom. In other words, if the
factum of manipulation is established it will necessarily follow that the
investors in the market had been induced to buy or sell and that no further
proof in this regard is required. The market, as already observed, is so
wide spread that it may not be humanly possible for the Board to track the
persons who were actually induced to buy or sell securities as a result of
manipulation and law can never impose on the Board a burden which is
impossible to be discharged. This, in our view, clearly flows from the plain
language of Regulation 4(a) of the Regulations.
19. I find that the Noticee had executed 394 (349 on BSE and 45 on
NSE) synchronized/reversal trades involving 1,55,943 shares.
These trades contributed more than 10% of the days quantity
traded on 2 days on NSE and it was more than 14% of the daily
volume on 4 days on BSE. I also find from the Trade Book of E
Stocks for AEL for the period from November 27, 2003 to
13. Page 13 of 17
December 23, 2003 (which was submitted by E Stocks) that the
Noticee had traded 1,80,238 shares out of which 1,55,943 was
synchronized/reversed, which works out to 86.52%.
20. In order to establish the fraudulent nature of trades indulged in by
the Noticee, reference may also be made to the definition of fraud
laid down in regulation 2 (1) (c) of the PFUTP Regulations, which
reads as follows:
"2 (1)(c) "fraud" includes any act, expression, omission or concealment
committed whether in a deceitful manner or not by a person or by any
other person with his connivance or by his agent to deal in securities,
whether or not there is any wrongful gain or avoidance of any loss, …
…”
21. Regulation 4(2)(a) of PFUTP Regulations prohibits a person from
indulging in an act which creates false or misleading appearance of
trading in the securities market. Regulation 4(2)(b) of PFUTP
Regulations prohibits dealings in a security intended to operate as
a device to inflate, depress or cause fluctuations in the price of
such security for wrongful gains. Regulation 4(2)(e) of PFUTP
Regulations prohibits any act or omission amounting to
manipulation of the price of a security. Regulation 4(2)(g) of
PFUTP Regulations prohibits from entering into a transaction in
securities without intention of performing it or without intention of
change of ownership of such security. Regulation 4(2)(n) of PFUTP
Regulations prohibits circular transactions in respect of a security
entered into between intermediaries in order to provide a false
appearance of trading in such security. As detailed above, the acts
of the Noticee clearly created false and misleading appearance of
trading in the shares of AEL and he did not act in a bonafide
manner. The facts of the case highlight the Noticee’s involvement,
by executing continuous synchronized/reversal trades in a
substantial manner, in the manipulation of price/volume of the
14. Page 14 of 17
shares of AEL which led to creation of artificial volume and
misleading appearance of trading in the said shares on account of
collusive activities with the entities as discussed in the preceding
paragraphs. As the transactions executed by the Noticee in AEL
were synchronized, there does not appear to be any genuine
trading interest in the scrip. All these, resulted in violation of the
provisions of regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a), (b), (e) and (g) of the PFUTP
Regulations.
22. Generally, synchronized trades/cross deals/circular trades are the
instruments/tools employed by some unscrupulous elements in the
securities market to manipulate the market and deceive the
general/genuine investors in the market place. The pattern of
trading, behaviour of the entities, apparent irregularities and the
available trading data, etc., prove manipulation which always
depends on inferences drawn on a mass of factual detail. When all
of these are considered together, they can emerge as ingredients
to prove the manipulative scheme designed and executed by such
manipulators with intent to tamper with free market forces.
23. I am of the view that the facts of the present case clearly bring out
an element of fraud and unfair trade practices indulged in by the
Noticee. Therefore, I hold that the charges leveled against the
Noticee are proved and that the allegation of violation of provisions
of regulations 4(1), 4(2)(a), (b), (e) and (g) of PFUTP Regulations
by the Noticee stands established.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of SEBI Vs. Shri
Ram Mutual Fund [2006] 68 SCL 216(SC) held that “In our
considered opinion, penalty is attracted as soon as the contravention of
the statutory obligation as contemplated by the Act and the Regulations is
15. Page 15 of 17
established and hence the intention of the parties committing such
violation becomes wholly irrelevant…”.
25. Thus, the aforesaid violations by the Noticee make him liable for
penalty under Section 15HA of SEBI Act, 1992 which read as
follows:
“Penalty for fraudulent and unfair trade practices
15HA. If any person indulges in fraudulent and unfair trade
practices relating to securities, he shall be liable to a penalty of
twenty-five crore rupees or three times the amount of profits made
out of such practices, whichever is higher.
26. While determining the quantum of penalty under section 15HA, it is
important to consider the factors stipulated in section 15J of SEBI
Act, which reads as under:-
“15J - Factors to be taken into account by the adjudicating officer
While adjudging quantum of penalty under section 15-I, the adjudicating
officer shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:-
(a) the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage,
wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default;
(b) the amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors as
a result of the default;
(c) the repetitive nature of the default.”
27. It is difficult, in cases of such nature, to quantify exactly the
disproportionate gains or unfair advantage enjoyed by an entity and
the consequent losses suffered by the investors. I have noted that
the investigation report also does not dwell on the extent of specific
gains made by the clients or sub-broker. Suffice to state that
keeping in mind the practices indulged in by the Noticee, gains per
se were made by the Noticee in that he traded in the scrip in a
manner meant to create artificial volumes and liquidity which is an
important criterion, apart from price, capable of misleading the
investors while making an investment decision. In fact,
liquidity/volumes in particular scrip raise the issue of ‘demand’ in
16. Page 16 of 17
the securities market. Greater the liquidity, higher is the investors’
attraction towards investing in that scrip. Hence, anyone could have
been carried away by the unusual fluctuations in the volumes and
been induced into investing in the said scrip. Besides, this kind of
activity seriously affects the normal price discovery mechanism of
the securities market. People who indulge in manipulative,
fraudulent and deceptive transactions, or abet the carrying out of
such transactions which are fraudulent and deceptive, should be
suitably penalized for the said acts of omissions and commissions.
Considering the continuous effort of the Noticee in this aspect
where the synchronized/reversal trades were carried out over a
short period of time, it can safely be surmised that the nature of
default was also repetitive.
ORDER
28. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the
case, I impose a penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand
only) on the Noticee which will be commensurate with the
violations committed by him.
29. The Noticee shall pay the said amount of penalty by way of
demand draft in favour of “SEBI - Penalties Remittable to
Government of India”, payable at Mumbai, within 45 days of receipt
of this order. The said demand draft should be forwarded to Ms.
Pradnya Saravade, Officer on Special Duty, Investigations
Department, SEBI, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C – 4 A, “G” Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051.
17. Page 17 of 17
30. In terms of rule 6 of the Rules, copies of this order are sent to the
Noticee and also to the Securities and Exchange Board of India.
Date: October 9, 2009 V.S.SUNDARESAN
Place: Mumbai ADJUDICATING OFFICER