<?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>2025 (11) TMI 964 - THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781496</link>
    <description>Matched buy and sell trades in illiquid stock options, executed with the same counterparty, in the same contracts, within a short span and in identical quantities, were treated as pre-arranged reversal trades rather than genuine market transactions. The Tribunal held that this conduct created artificial volume and distorted market activity, amounting to a violation of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003. The plea that delay in issuing notice should defeat the proceedings was rejected in view of the seriousness of the transactions. The violation was upheld and the penalty order sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 964 - THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781496</link>
      <description>Matched buy and sell trades in illiquid stock options, executed with the same counterparty, in the same contracts, within a short span and in identical quantities, were treated as pre-arranged reversal trades rather than genuine market transactions. The Tribunal held that this conduct created artificial volume and distorted market activity, amounting to a violation of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003. The plea that delay in issuing notice should defeat the proceedings was rejected in view of the seriousness of the transactions. The violation was upheld and the penalty order sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>