SAT backs SEBI interim order on SSSL share fraud, bogus financials, circular funding; appeal dismissed, adjudication continues

SAT upheld SEBI's interim order concerning fraudulent preferential allotment, manipulation of financial statements, and unlawful gains in relation to shares of SSSL. It found that promoters and related entities obtained a massive number of shares without genuine cash consideration through a circular funding arrangement and subsequent bonus and split issues, and misrepresented financials by inflating purchases and sales via bogus entities. SAT held that the appellants failed to rebut SEBI's detailed findings or provide a credible explanation, including regarding alleged land transactions, and noted their non-disclosure of assets. Concluding that investor protection warranted non-interference, SAT dismissed the appeal and allowed SEBI to continue adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interim ex parte order directing restraint on dealing in securities, prohibition on association with intermediaries/issuers, impounding of alleged unlawful gains and related asset-preservation directions against the appellants, issued by the Whole Time Member of SEBI under the PFUTP Regulations and Sections 12A(a)-(c) of the SEBI Act, are justified on prima facie grounds.

Analysis: The impugned order rests on a detailed investigation which found rapid and unusual increase in issued shares of the company through preferential allotment, bonus and stock-split without commensurate cash consideration; alleged circular movement of funds whereby subscription monies were routed back to promoter-related entities; inflated financial statements reflecting fictitious sales and purchases; and subsequent large-scale off-loading of shares by promoters and the appellants yielding substantial gains. The investigation relied on transaction flows, timing of funds, and admissions by the promoter (whose retraction was noted but left for final adjudication). Appellants advanced explanations including a land acquisition agreement and refund sequences, and challenged reliance on the promoter's statement; however, the Tribunal found the explanations not satisfactorily supported on the record available during the interim stage and observed lack of cogent contemporaneous evidence produced to rebut the prima facie findings. The Tribunal also noted appellants' failure to disclose assets before the regulator and the public interest in preserving alleged unlawfully derived sums pending completion of adjudication; it clarified that its observations are confined to the interim appeal and do not prejudice final adjudication, and directed cooperation and timely completion of the final proceedings.

Conclusion: The interim directions impounding the alleged unlawful gains and imposing restraints on the appellants are upheld on prima facie grounds and in the interest of investor protection; the decision is accordingly in favour of Respondent.

---