2011 (8) TMI 1371 - AT - SEBI

Fraudulent Share Transfers Lead to Market Ban & Penalties: SEBI Ruling

Parsoli Corporation Limited and Ors. Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India

The case involved Parsoli Corporation Ltd. and its promoters engaging in fraudulent transfer of shares, non-disclosure of shareholding pattern changes, ... - Issues Involved:1. Fraudulent transfer of shares by Parsoli Corporation Ltd. and its promoters.2. Non-disclosure of shareholding pattern changes and dividend cancellation to BSE.3. Non-cooperation with SEBI investigations.4. Non-compliance with SEBI's order to change the RTA.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Fraudulent Transfer of SharesKey Question: Did Parsoli Corporation Ltd. and its promoters defraud shareholders by transferring shares based on forged signatures and documentsRs.Findings:- Parsoli Corporation Ltd. (Parsoli) and its promoters were found guilty of transferring 80,800 shares of 252 shareholders using forged signatures and duplicate share certificates.- The modus operandi involved retaining specimen signature cards and verifying signatures in-house instead of through the appointed share transfer agent (RTA), which was illegal.- Parsoli compensated shareholders by crediting shares back into their demat accounts through off-market transactions when caught.- SEBI's investigation revealed that Parsoli and its directors did not cooperate, withheld information, and provided misleading responses.- The whole time member of SEBI and the adjudicating officer found Parsoli and its promoters guilty of violating Regulations 3 and 4 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, and Regulations 53A and 54(5) of the SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulations, 1996.Judgment:- Parsoli and its directors were restrained from accessing the securities market for seven years.- The directors were also prohibited from holding the position of a director in any listed company for the same period.- They were directed to make a public offer to acquire shares from public shareholders and facilitate the delisting of Parsoli if public shareholding fell below the minimum level.- Monetary penalties were imposed: Rs. 25 lakhs for non-cooperation with SEBI investigations and Rs. 3 crores for fraudulent activities.Issue 2: Non-Disclosure of Shareholding Pattern Changes and Dividend CancellationKey Question: Did Parsoli fail to disclose changes in shareholding pattern and the cancellation of dividend to BSERs.Findings:- Parsoli's promoters transferred 9,61,600 shares, changing the shareholding pattern, but did not disclose this to BSE.- The board of directors recommended a 10% dividend but later reversed this decision without informing BSE.- These actions were found to be violations of Clause 35 of the listing agreement and Regulations 3 and 4 of the FUTP Regulations.Judgment:- Parsoli was restrained from accessing the securities market for one year.- Monetary penalties were imposed on Parsoli and its promoters for the violations.Issue 3: Non-Cooperation with SEBI InvestigationsKey Question: Did Parsoli and its promoters fail to cooperate with SEBI's investigationsRs.Findings:- Parsoli and its directors did not provide necessary information during SEBI's investigations and attempted to mislead the process.- This non-cooperation was a violation of Section 11C of the SEBI Act.Judgment:- A penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs was imposed for violating Section 11C by not furnishing information to SEBI.Issue 4: Non-Compliance with SEBI's Order to Change the RTAKey Question: Did Parsoli fail to comply with SEBI's order to change its RTARs.Findings:- Parsoli delayed compliance with SEBI's order to change the RTA by 54 days.- The explanation provided by Parsoli for the delay was considered plausible.Judgment:- The whole time member's order restraining Parsoli from accessing the securities market for six months was set aside.- SEBI was advised to take penal action for the delay through appropriate adjudication proceedings.Conclusion:- Appeals No. 112, 113, 145, 146 of 2010 and Appeals No. 77, 80, 81, 82 of 2011 were dismissed, upholding the impugned orders.- Appeal No. 150 of 2010 was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.- The prayer for interim stay on the operation of the orders was rejected.