<?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>2022 (3) TMI 1639 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461815</link>
    <description>The applicable standard for misuse of client funds was the 18 November 1993 SEBI circular, which prohibited drawing client money for purposes other than those permitted, together with Regulation 26(xiii) of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, which requires segregation of a broker&#039;s own funds and client funds and bars use of client funds for the broker&#039;s own purposes or for other clients. The 26 September 2016 circular was used only for penalty computation and did not govern the substantive finding for the relevant period. The challenge based on retrospective application therefore failed, and the finding of misutilisation and lack of segregation was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:03:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1639 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461815</link>
      <description>The applicable standard for misuse of client funds was the 18 November 1993 SEBI circular, which prohibited drawing client money for purposes other than those permitted, together with Regulation 26(xiii) of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Regulations, 1992, which requires segregation of a broker&#039;s own funds and client funds and bars use of client funds for the broker&#039;s own purposes or for other clients. The 26 September 2016 circular was used only for penalty computation and did not govern the substantive finding for the relevant period. The challenge based on retrospective application therefore failed, and the finding of misutilisation and lack of segregation was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>