<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (2) TMI 464 - Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221059</link>
    <description>Front running by a non-intermediary was examined under the 2003 PFUTP Regulations and section 15HA of the SEBI Act. Regulation 3 prohibits fraudulent and unfair trade practices, but regulation 4(2)(q) specifically treats front running as fraudulent only when committed by an intermediary. The commentary notes that the broader language in the 1995 regime was not carried forward into the 2003 framework. On the stated facts, the trades were screen-based and executed at prevailing market prices, and dishonest conduct towards an employer did not by itself amount to market fraud or manipulation absent a specific prohibition covering non-intermediary front running.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194416" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 464 - Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221059</link>
      <description>Front running by a non-intermediary was examined under the 2003 PFUTP Regulations and section 15HA of the SEBI Act. Regulation 3 prohibits fraudulent and unfair trade practices, but regulation 4(2)(q) specifically treats front running as fraudulent only when committed by an intermediary. The commentary notes that the broader language in the 1995 regime was not carried forward into the 2003 framework. On the stated facts, the trades were screen-based and executed at prevailing market prices, and dishonest conduct towards an employer did not by itself amount to market fraud or manipulation absent a specific prohibition covering non-intermediary front running.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>