Securities frauds such as insider trading and front running raise insurmountable hurdles for regulators because there is often no evidence, not even a smoking gun. Hence, regulators bear the burden of painstakingly piecing together several bits of circumstantial evidence that, as a whole, might be sufficient to convince a court or tribunal of the elements of a breach of the appropriate...
The Supreme Court’s Liberal Interpretation of the SEBI Regulations on Fraudulent Trade Practices
[Jitesh Maheshwari is an Associate at Mindspright Legal in Mumbai] Introduction The Supreme Court last month passed a landmark judgment in SEBI v. Shri Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel in which front running by a non-intermediary has been bought within the prohibition of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (the “PFUTP...
Amendments to SEBI’s FUTP Regulations Effective
In previous posts (here, here and here), we had discussed issues that had arisen under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to the Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (the FUTP Regulations), particularly in the context of front running. We had also discussed SEBI’s proposal to amend the FUTP Regulations to expand the scope of front running and also to bring in...
SEBI penalises front-running again, does not follow SAT’s order
There is yet another Order of SEBI on front running and SEBI holds that transactions in the nature of front running are violative of the PFUTP Regulations. This is close after SAT’s recent ruling (“the Patel Order”) holding that front running cannot be punished, as discussed by me here, and another later ruling by SAT (“the Karkera Order”) as discussed by Mr. V. Umakanth here. By an Order dated...
Recent Comments