https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385478 Synchronized trades, self-trades and repetitive matched orders that created artificial volumes were treated as market manipulation under the securities law framework. The Tribunal found that concentrated closing-minute transactions, connected-party dealings and the same participants acting as both buyer and seller were inconsistent with ordinary independent trading and pointed to a concerted plan to influence price and volume. It further stated that manipulation is not limited to direct price impact; misleading market activity and artificial volume creation also fall within the prohibitory provisions. The explanations based on absence from India, independent trading, post-closing execution and non-participation in derivatives were rejected, and the penalties were upheld. en-us Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2019 07:27:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385478 Synchronized trades, self-trades and repetitive matched orders that created artificial volumes were treated as market manipulation under the securities law framework. The Tribunal found that concentrated closing-minute transactions, connected-party dealings and the same participants acting as both buyer and seller were inconsistent with ordinary independent trading and pointed to a concerted plan to influence price and volume. It further stated that manipulation is not limited to direct price impact; misleading market activity and artificial volume creation also fall within the prohibitory provisions. The explanations based on absence from India, independent trading, post-closing execution and non-participation in derivatives were rejected, and the penalties were upheld. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 12 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385478