<?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>Cross-segment derivatives manipulation triggered market-access restraints and preservation of alleged wrongful gains through interim directions pending investigation.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104559</link>
    <description>Cross-segment derivatives trading was treated prima facie as manipulative where connected companies moved futures prices through aggressive orders while holding larger, sentimentally opposite options positions and pre-positioned options orders. Artificial futures-price movements enabled favourable options execution, while cancelled, inexecutable futures orders added deceptive order-book depth. Repeated deliberate futures losses coupled with greater options gains were considered inconsistent with legitimate hedging, arbitrage, speculation, or rational profit-maximising conduct. Company directors responsible for business conduct faced a rebuttable presumption of vicarious liability and joint-and-several impounding of gains attributable to their companies. Interim directions restricted market access, preserved assets and gains, and required asset disclosures pending investigation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:13:52 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:13:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=928041" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Cross-segment derivatives manipulation triggered market-access restraints and preservation of alleged wrongful gains through interim directions pending investigation.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104559</link>
      <description>Cross-segment derivatives trading was treated prima facie as manipulative where connected companies moved futures prices through aggressive orders while holding larger, sentimentally opposite options positions and pre-positioned options orders. Artificial futures-price movements enabled favourable options execution, while cancelled, inexecutable futures orders added deceptive order-book depth. Repeated deliberate futures losses coupled with greater options gains were considered inconsistent with legitimate hedging, arbitrage, speculation, or rational profit-maximising conduct. Company directors responsible for business conduct faced a rebuttable presumption of vicarious liability and joint-and-several impounding of gains attributable to their companies. Interim directions restricted market access, preserved assets and gains, and required asset disclosures pending investigation.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:13:52 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>