SEBI bans individual for three years over fraudulent trading through layered overseas FII transactions

SEBI imposed a three-year market ban on the noticee for fraudulent securities trading through layered overseas transactions. The noticee used FII route to trade in group company shares while concealing his identity through front entities and overseas bank accounts. SEBI found violations of PFUTP Regulations and SEBI Act for manipulative trading in Herbertsons and USL shares, misrepresenting shareholding patterns by showing promoter holdings as non-promoter FII investments. The order prohibits securities market access and association with listed companies for three years, with existing holdings frozen.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in initiating proceedings.
2. Misuse of FII route for trading.
3. Misrepresentation of shareholding.
4. Violation of SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations.
5. Principles of natural justice and opportunity of hearing.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Initiating Proceedings:
The Noticee argued that the proceedings initiated after a delay of 15 years were unfair and violated principles of natural justice. The Noticee highlighted that SEBI regulations and other relevant laws typically require records to be maintained for 5 to 8 years, making it difficult to verify the authenticity of documents after such a long period. SEBI countered this by detailing the complexity of the investigation, which involved coordination with multiple foreign regulatory bodies and the collection of data from various jurisdictions. SEBI cited judgments from the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) and the Supreme Court, which acknowledged that delays in such complex investigations are sometimes unavoidable.

2. Misuse of FII Route for Trading:
The Noticee was found to have used a sub-account, Matterhorn Ventures, an FII, to indirectly trade in the scrips of his own group entities, Herbertsons Limited and United Spirits Limited (USL). The investigation revealed that funds were routed through various overseas entities controlled by the Noticee, thereby concealing his true identity. This was in violation of Regulations 3(a), (b), and (d) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003, and Section 12A(a) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992. SEBI emphasized that the FII Regulations are intended to facilitate foreign investments, not to serve as conduits for Indian entities to reinvest in India.

3. Misrepresentation of Shareholding:
The Noticee was found to have misrepresented the shareholding of Matterhorn Ventures in Herbertsons as non-promoter public holding, whereas it actually belonged to the promoter category. This misrepresentation violated Regulation 4(2)(f) of the PFUTP Regulations, 2003. The investigation showed that the Noticee funded the acquisition of shares through layered transactions involving various overseas entities, ultimately masking his identity and misleading investors.

4. Violation of SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations:
The Noticee's actions were found to be in violation of the SEBI Act, 1992, and PFUTP Regulations, 2003. The Noticee employed manipulative and deceptive practices to trade in the shares of his group companies, which was detrimental to investors and the integrity of the securities market. SEBI cited judgments from the Supreme Court, which emphasized that market abuse and manipulation undermine investor confidence and market integrity.

5. Principles of Natural Justice and Opportunity of Hearing:
The Noticee argued that the opportunity of hearing provided by SEBI was an empty formality. SEBI countered this by detailing the multiple opportunities given to the Noticee to inspect documents and present his case. Despite these opportunities, the Noticee failed to file a reply on merits or attend the hearings. SEBI cited legal principles, emphasizing that refusal to participate in an inquiry without valid reason cannot be pleaded as a violation of natural justice at a later stage.

Conclusion and Order:
SEBI concluded that the Noticee had indeed violated the provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992, and PFUTP Regulations, 2003. The Noticee was restrained from accessing the securities market and prohibited from buying, selling, or dealing in securities, directly or indirectly, for a period of three years. Additionally, the Noticee was barred from associating with any listed company in any capacity for three years. The existing holding of securities of the Noticee was ordered to remain frozen during the period of restraint. This order was to come into immediate effect, and copies were to be sent to recognized stock exchanges, depositories, and registrar and transfer agents for compliance.

---