https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198183 Synchronized trades and cross deals executed on client instructions, settled through the exchange, and unsupported by material showing market-manipulative intent were treated as non-punishable conduct, so the charge failed. Front running, by contrast, was described as using advance knowledge of pending client orders for personal or related-party gain and as an impermissible market practice akin to insider trading; on the facts, that misconduct was proved through trades in the same scrip made with knowledge of likely client orders. The penalty was moderated because the conduct was confined to a few days, the profit was small, and the proceedings had remained pending for an inordinate period, resulting in a warning instead of suspension. en-us Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198183 Synchronized trades and cross deals executed on client instructions, settled through the exchange, and unsupported by material showing market-manipulative intent were treated as non-punishable conduct, so the charge failed. Front running, by contrast, was described as using advance knowledge of pending client orders for personal or related-party gain and as an impermissible market practice akin to insider trading; on the facts, that misconduct was proved through trades in the same scrip made with knowledge of likely client orders. The penalty was moderated because the conduct was confined to a few days, the profit was small, and the proceedings had remained pending for an inordinate period, resulting in a warning instead of suspension. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198183