ADOLF PINTO Vs. ADJUDICATION OFFICER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
LAWS(SB)-2011-1-1
SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 19,2011

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.K.Sodhi, Presiding Officer (Oral) - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated August 30, 2010 passed by the adjudicating officer imposing a monetary penalty of Rs. 2 lacs on the appellant for violating Regulation 4 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 (for short FUTP regulations) and code of conduct prescribed for stock brokers in Schedule II read with Regulation 7 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stock Brokers and Sub -Brokers) Regulations, 1992.
(2.) THE Securities and Exchange Board of India carried out investigations in the trading in the scrips of BSEL Infrastructure Realty Ltd. and Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. (referred to hereinafter as BSEL and MSL respectively) to examine the role of brokers, sub -brokers and their clients who had traded in these scrips. Investigations revealed that certain entities including the appellant had executed synchronized / reverse / circular trades which led to the creation of artificial volumes in the scrips. The appellant is a stock broker who had executed trades on behalf of his son who was his client in both the scrips and those trades were circular in nature. Adjudication proceedings were initiated against him and he was served with a show cause notice alleging violation of the aforesaid provisions. He field a reply the relevant part of which reads as under - 1. I deny that my son Kenneth Pinto has synchronized trades and that I have created artificial volume in the scrip of BSEL and MSL, and further manipulated the price of BSEL and MSL. From the trade log it is noticed that I have not traded at the opening bell or a few minutes of the opening bell but after substantial volume have taken place, any manipulations trade is simply is not possible. It is a mere figment of imagination. Even, if there is a co -relation, it is a mere coincidence, hence the allegation of synchronized trading is uncalled for. 2. I deny that I have colluded with certain brokers / clients for transacting in the scrip of BSEL / MSL, the trades if they matched with rate and quantity is a mere coincidence, as I do not know / related with any other broker / clients my trade is mere jobbing in nature.
(3.) I deny all the above allegations and state that this is a mere coincidence. I deny that I know the opposite enteritis and my trades are merely jobbing transaction, as we have not given or taken delivery of shares. Further there are no ill -gotten gains. I further state that these trades happened unknowingly, unwittingly and with no intent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.