https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309367 Prima facie evidence of client fund diversion, misuse of client securities, non-segregation of client and proprietary assets, and inadequate cooperation with inspection justified urgent interim regulatory restraint. The material also indicated breaches of client asset protection and related SEBI compliance requirements, supporting immediate action to protect investor interests and market integrity. Because related entities and promoters had large inter-account transfers, unresolved client complaints, and a real risk of asset dissipation, the regulator ordered freezing of assets, bank accounts, and demat accounts to preserve status quo. Limited use was permitted only for payment or delivery to clients and investors under supervision, pending detailed inquiry. en-us Tue, 29 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Aug 2023 18:18:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309367 Prima facie evidence of client fund diversion, misuse of client securities, non-segregation of client and proprietary assets, and inadequate cooperation with inspection justified urgent interim regulatory restraint. The material also indicated breaches of client asset protection and related SEBI compliance requirements, supporting immediate action to protect investor interests and market integrity. Because related entities and promoters had large inter-account transfers, unresolved client complaints, and a real risk of asset dissipation, the regulator ordered freezing of assets, bank accounts, and demat accounts to preserve status quo. Limited use was permitted only for payment or delivery to clients and investors under supervision, pending detailed inquiry. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 29 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309367