New Delhi, May 28 (PTI) Anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal on Wednesday disposed of complaints alleging impropriety and conflict of interest against former SEBI chief Madhabi Puri Buch based on a Hindenburg Research report, terming the charges as "presumptions and assumptions" not supported by any verifiable material.

The Lokpal said that the complaints, including the one by TMC MP Mahua Moitra, filed last year were essentially founded on the report "by a known short seller trader whose focus was to expose or corner Adani Group of Companies".

In its report published on August 10, 2024, Hindenburg Research alleged that Buch and her husband had stakes in obscure offshore funds used in the alleged money-siphoning scandal involving the Adani Group.

They had denied the allegations saying the short-seller was attacking the capital markets regulator's credibility and attempting a character assassination.

The Adani Group had also termed the allegations as malicious and manipulation of selective public information.

In its Wednesday order, the Lokpal "concluded that the allegations in the complaint(s) are more on presumptions and assumptions and not supported by any verifiable material and do not attract the ingredients of the offences... so as to direct an investigation therefor".

Accordingly, these complaints are disposed of, said the order by a six-member bench headed by Lokpal chairperson Justice A M Khanwilkar.

Buch, who took over as the chief of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on March 2, 2022, demitted office on February 28, this year after the completion of her tenure.

Referring to an earlier order in this regard, the Lokpal said that the Hindenburg report by itself cannot be made the sole basis to escalate action against Buch.

"The complainant(s) being conscious of this position advisedly attempted to articulate allegations independent of the stated report but the analysis of the allegations by us, ended with a finding that the same are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity," the order said.

The Lokpal had on November 8, last year sought Buch's "explanation" on the complaints filed by Moitra, a Lok Sabha member, and two others.

Buch, the former chairperson of capital markets regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), was asked to submit her response within four weeks.

Buch had filed her response by way of an affidavit sworn on December 7, 2024, raising preliminary issues as well as giving an explanation allegation-wise.

The Lokpal had on December 19 last year decided to give an opportunity of oral hearing to both Buch and the complainants to clarify their positions taken in the complaints or the affidavit.

Hindenburg Research's founder announced its closure in January this year.

Meanwhile, the Lokpal took the matter for oral arguments on April 9, after further documents and affidavits-cum-written-submissions were filed.

"The advocate for the complainant in the second complaint made exhaustive oral submissions. The proxy counsel appearing for the complainant in the third complaint opted to file written submissions.

"Although the complainant in the third complaint has been represented by an advocate, neither the complainant nor the advocate appeared to make oral submissions," the order said.

Buch was represented by senior counsel who made elaborate oral submissions.

"At the conclusion of the oral arguments parties were given time to file written note/response as requested by them, for consideration of the bench," the order said.

It said that at the time of oral submissions, the complainants have mainly invoked sections 7 and 11 of the Act of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation of Buch having taken undue advantage.

In the order, the Lokpal noted that five allegations have been emphasised during the oral arguments and in the written notes/submissions by the complainants, and dealt with them in detail in its order, before finally disposing of them. PTI AKV RT RT RT

Conflict of interest allegations against a former regulator found unsubstantiated after review and oral submissions. Allegations of conflict of interest and impropriety based on a short seller report were found to lack verifiable material; independent complaints were analysed and deemed untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity, and a commercial report by itself was held insufficient to trigger formal investigation absent corroboration.