SEBI tribunal reduces penalty in GDR fraud case, finds it excessive.

The appeal involved a case of fraudulent scheme in the issuance of GDRs by a company, leading to misleading investors and non-disclosure of crucial information. The ex-managing director challenged the SEBI AO's penalty imposition, arguing that the penalty was excessive. The tribunal found the penalty disproportionate to the offense and reduced it from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 10 lakh, considering the proper utilization of GDR funds and the appellant's resignation in 2008. The appeal was partly allowed, with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Fraudulent scheme in issuance of GDRs.
2. Misleading investors and non-disclosure.
3. Proportionality of penalty imposed.

Summary:

1. Fraudulent Scheme in Issuance of GDRs:
The appeal was filed by the ex-managing director of Maars Software International Ltd. against the SEBI AO's order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 crore for violating Section 12A of the SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations. The company devised a fraudulent scheme involving the issuance of GDRs, with a resolution passed to open a bank account with EURAM Bank and authorize the appellant to execute necessary documents. A loan agreement was made with Vintage FZE to subscribe to 73,80,000 GDRs, secured by a pledge agreement.

2. Misleading Investors and Non-Disclosure:
SEBI's investigation found that Vintage was the sole subscriber to the GDRs, and the company did not disclose this fact, misleading investors. The loan and pledge agreements were not disclosed to the stock exchange or shareholders. A show cause notice was issued for violating Section 12A(a), (b), (c) of the SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations. The company reported misleading information to the stock exchange, indicating successful GDR subscription, which was actually subscribed by one entity through a loan.

3. Proportionality of Penalty Imposed:
The AO rejected the appellant's contentions, holding the company guilty of misleading investors and committing fraud. However, it was noted that the GDR proceeds were used for their intended purpose without any diversion of funds or wrongful dealings in securities. The appellant argued that the penalty was harsh and excessive. The tribunal referred to the doctrine of proportionality, emphasizing that penalties should not be disproportionate to the offense. Comparative penalties in similar cases were considered, and it was found that the penalty imposed on the appellant was excessive and discriminatory. The tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 10 lakh, considering the appellant's resignation in 2008 and the proper utilization of GDR funds. The appeal was partly allowed, with each party bearing their own costs.

---