Home Case Index All Cases SEBI SEBI + AT SEBI - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1477 - AT - SEBIViolation of the SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations - Prohibition of manipulative and deceptive devices, insider trading and substantial acquisition of securities or control - HELD THAT:- Given the above provisions of the SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations it is evident that the appellant, along with other entities in the Vishvas group have indulged in synchronized and circular trading and contributed substantially in raising the LTP. The exact figures relating to each category of trading and LTP contribution is given in the impugned order. What is disputed by the appellant is that she had no connection with the Vishvas group and synchronization / circularity happened just by chance. However, given the proximity of time between trading by these entities and the number of such instances of trades we are unable to appreciate this submission of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that appellant was trading as a sub broker and the matter was remanded to SEBI by this Tribunal on April 29, 2016 mainly on this ground. As clearly demonstrated in the impugned order that the appellant could not produce any evidence relating to her contention that she was trading on behalf of a client, namely, Perfect Car Scanners Pvt. Ltd. Trading by the Vishvas Group as a whole and individually by the appellant was substantial quantity as explained in para 4 (supra) of this order and there were synchronized trades, reversal trades as well as manipulation of LTP. Therefore, the findings in the impugned order that the appellant has violated the stated provisions of SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations 2003 cannot be faulted. The orders relied on by the appellant do not come to her help.he trading details, its nature, time etc. reveal the manipulation in the scrip of Gangotri. Apart from stating that that the appellant has no connection with the Vishvas group the appellant could not explain why and how so many of her trades were in the nature of synchronized and reversed trades and that too most of the times within a few seconds with trades of other entities in the Vishvas group. Such synchronization and reversal of trade is not possible without a prior meeting of minds as held in SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA VERSUS KISHORE R. AJMERA [2016 (2) TMI 723 - SUPREME COURT]. The submission that the penalty imposed is too harsh also does not have any merit. On remand by this Tribunal and on reconsideration the AO of SEBI has reduced the amount of penalty from ₹ 60 lakh to ₹ 25 lakh. Further, the penalty imposable under Section 15HA of SEBI Act is three times the amount of profit or ₹ 25 crore whichever is higher. Therefore, while imposing an amount of ₹ 25 lakh only as penalty the AO has factored in all the mitigating circumstances including that the appellant might have made loss. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the amount of penalty imposed
|