<?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>2012 (4) TMI 780 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293060</link>
    <description>A broker may be liable for fraudulent and unfair trade practices where repeated small trades in an illiquid scrip, including self trades and fictitious trades, indicate a structured attempt to support and inflate price. The analysis states that client instructions do not excuse conduct where the trade pattern itself is suspicious and the broker fails to act with due care, skill and diligence expected of a registered intermediary. On that basis, violation of the FUTP Regulations and the broker code of conduct was upheld, while the penalty for the FUTP breach was reduced. The substantive findings of market manipulation and lack of diligence were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:17:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=633527" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 780 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293060</link>
      <description>A broker may be liable for fraudulent and unfair trade practices where repeated small trades in an illiquid scrip, including self trades and fictitious trades, indicate a structured attempt to support and inflate price. The analysis states that client instructions do not excuse conduct where the trade pattern itself is suspicious and the broker fails to act with due care, skill and diligence expected of a registered intermediary. On that basis, violation of the FUTP Regulations and the broker code of conduct was upheld, while the penalty for the FUTP breach was reduced. The substantive findings of market manipulation and lack of diligence were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>