<?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>2008 (5) TMI 729 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283408</link>
    <description>Insider trading under Regulation 3 was analysed as prohibiting an insider from dealing in securities on the basis of unpublished price sensitive information, with the phrase &quot;on the basis of&quot; meaning the information in the insider&#039;s possession must have motivated the trade. Where an insider trades while in possession of such information, a rebuttable presumption arises that the trade was made on that basis, and the insider must offer a reasonable or plausible explanation showing a different motivation. The appellants were treated as insiders, had access to the relevant financial information, and did not rebut the presumption, so the finding of insider trading and the penalty were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 729 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283408</link>
      <description>Insider trading under Regulation 3 was analysed as prohibiting an insider from dealing in securities on the basis of unpublished price sensitive information, with the phrase &quot;on the basis of&quot; meaning the information in the insider&#039;s possession must have motivated the trade. Where an insider trades while in possession of such information, a rebuttable presumption arises that the trade was made on that basis, and the insider must offer a reasonable or plausible explanation showing a different motivation. The appellants were treated as insiders, had access to the relevant financial information, and did not rebut the presumption, so the finding of insider trading and the penalty were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>