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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more