<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1762 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464765</link>
    <description>A registered stock broker was found to have breached the duty of due skill, care and diligence by permitting repeated self trades and synchronized trades in client dealings, including trades executed from the same terminal and arrangements where the broker functioned as both broker and counterparty broker. The conduct was treated as harmful to market integrity, and the violation was proved. The penalty challenge also failed because the lapse was not trivial, the failure continued over a substantial period, and the sanction was assessed within the statutory maximum, so the penalty was held proportionate and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 19:36:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1762 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464765</link>
      <description>A registered stock broker was found to have breached the duty of due skill, care and diligence by permitting repeated self trades and synchronized trades in client dealings, including trades executed from the same terminal and arrangements where the broker functioned as both broker and counterparty broker. The conduct was treated as harmful to market integrity, and the violation was proved. The penalty challenge also failed because the lapse was not trivial, the failure continued over a substantial period, and the sanction was assessed within the statutory maximum, so the penalty was held proportionate and the appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>