Skip to main content

Front running not a crime, if committed by non-intermediaries - SAT

Perhaps SEBI has taken its original mandate of protecting individual investors to a ridiculous extent.

A fantastic situation has come up wherein the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) while acknowledging that even if a crime has been committed, nothing can be done as the law has no provision to prosecute individuals.

The fact of the case was that an employee of an FII who was its portfolio manager apparently used to inform his cousins before executing trades on behalf of the FII. The cousins then used to buy the stocks before the FII's transaction and similarly sell before the FII came to sell. This practice is known as 'Front running' and is blatantly illegal as someone is using confidential information for personal gains.

Using this method these clever crooks apparently made profit of crores of rupees. The transaction volume etc. being high, came under SEBI scanner who tracked them down and imposed heavy penalties  The matter on appeal thus landed before the SAT.


The laws laid done in the act allegedly violated is SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Markets) Regulations, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”).

Going through the various documents and arguments of the SEBI and the accused, the SAT came to the conclusion that even if the accused has committed the crime, nothing can be done as the law very specifically applies to market intermediaries and not individuals. Incidentally, the same law earlier applied to any person and under the earlier law, these acts of the accused would clearly had been criminal and they could have been penalised. But not now!! Why was it changed in such a strange way?


Appeal No. 216 of 2011
Date of Decision : 09.11.2012

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Winding-Up Petition Can’t Be Used If Bona Fide Payment Disputes Pending

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of M/s Uttam Industrial Engineering Ltd vs  M/s Shree Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd, has held that a winding-up petition has serious  ramifications on the financial standing of a company and cannot be used in cases  where there is a bona fide dispute regarding the amount owed by one party to the  other and in such cases the company court should relegate the matter either to the  civil court or arbitral tribunal. In this case, Uttam Industrial Ltd entered into a contract with Basaveshwar Sugars Ltd  to provide machinery and equipment for a sugar plant. Article referred:  http://www.livelaw.in/remedy-winding-petition-cant-relied-upon-bona-fide-payment-disputes-karnataka-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

A liquidator must pay GST on sale of assets of a defunct company

The West Bengal Authority of Advance Ruling has ruled that a National Company Law Tribunal appointed liquidator must have the GST registration till all liabilities cease to exist and that the liquidator must pay goods and services tax (GST) on sale of assets of a defunct company under liquidation, as the sale is effectively supply of goods. 
Post a Comment
Read more