https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392428 A stockbroker was found to have facilitated trades in a highly illiquid scrip without proper client due diligence, while unrebutted material indicated artificial volume and price movement. The Tribunal held that failure to verify the genuineness and financial soundness of the client, together with the absence of timely rebuttal and the refusal to accept new documents first produced on appeal, sustained the finding of violation of fraudulent and unfair trade practice norms and the code of conduct. The penalty was also upheld because the Adjudicating Officer had considered the statutory penalty factors, the loss and gain could not be precisely quantified, and the amount imposed was well below the maximum exposure. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:27:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392428 A stockbroker was found to have facilitated trades in a highly illiquid scrip without proper client due diligence, while unrebutted material indicated artificial volume and price movement. The Tribunal held that failure to verify the genuineness and financial soundness of the client, together with the absence of timely rebuttal and the refusal to accept new documents first produced on appeal, sustained the finding of violation of fraudulent and unfair trade practice norms and the code of conduct. The penalty was also upheld because the Adjudicating Officer had considered the statutory penalty factors, the loss and gain could not be precisely quantified, and the amount imposed was well below the maximum exposure. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 09 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392428