Insider Trading Presumption Can Be Rebutted by Bona Fide Circumstances; Separate Disclosure Lapse Still Attracts Penalty
Regulation 4(1) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 raises a presumption against trading while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information, but its proviso is inclusive and permits an insider to rebut that presumption with bona fide surrounding circumstances beyond the listed illustrations. Pre-clearance, an open trading window, and use of sale proceeds for a residential flat purchase were treated as relevant circumstances showing legitimate purpose and no insider trading. A separate disclosure lapse under Regulation 7(2)(a), where trades were not reported within two days, remained independently established and attracted sustained penalty.
Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Regulation 4(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 is inclusive and permits an insider to establish innocence on circumstances beyond those specifically listed; (ii) whether the appellant's share sales, made after pre-clearance and for funding a residential flat purchase, were bona fide and therefore not hit by the prohibition on trading while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information; (iii) whether the disclosure default under Regulation 7(2)(a) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 survived.
Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Regulation 4(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 is inclusive and permits an insider to establish innocence on circumstances beyond those specifically listed.
Analysis: Regulation 4(1) creates a presumption against trading when a person is in possession of unpublished price sensitive information. The proviso enables the insider to prove innocence by demonstrating the surrounding circumstances of the trade. The expression "including" in the proviso was treated as enlarging, not limiting, the illustrations in clauses (i) to (vi), so the listed situations are not exhaustive.
Conclusion: The proviso is inclusive and not exhaustive, and the insider may rely on other bona fide circumstances to rebut the presumption.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's share sales, made after pre-clearance and for funding a residential flat purchase, were bona fide and therefore not hit by the prohibition on trading while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information.
Analysis: The appellant had obtained pre-clearance, the trading window was not closed, and the sale proceeds were used for part payment under an earlier agreement to purchase a residential flat. These admitted facts showed a legitimate purpose unconnected with any price-sensitive information. The trades were therefore treated as bona fide and not motivated by unpublished price sensitive information.
Conclusion: The appellant was not guilty of insider trading and did not violate Regulation 4(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 or Clause 6 of the Code of Conduct.
Issue (iii): Whether the disclosure default under Regulation 7(2)(a) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 survived.
Analysis: The record showed that two trades were not disclosed within the prescribed period of two days. That limited lapse was proved independently of the insider trading charge.
Conclusion: The penalty for breach of Regulation 7(2)(a) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The insider trading findings and the consequential restraint were set aside, but the limited disclosure default and the corresponding penalty were maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Regulation 4(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 is illustrative, and an insider may rebut the presumption of motivated trading by proving bona fide circumstances showing that the trade was not induced by unpublished price sensitive information.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
