Case: Securities &amp; Exchange Board of India Vs. Rakhi Trading Private Ltd

or is dubious in nature and is executed with a view to avoid regulatory detection or does not involve change of beneficial ownership or is executed to create false volumes resulting in upsetting the market equilibrium. Any transaction executed with the intention to defeat the market mechanism whether negotiated or not would be illegal. Whether a transaction has been executed with the intention to manipulate the market or defeat its mechanism will depend upon the intention of the parties which could be inferred from the attending circumstances because direct evidence in such cases may not be available. The nature of the transaction executed, the frequency with which such transactions are undertaken, the value of the transactions, whether they involve circular trading and whether there is real change of beneficial ownership, the conditions then prevailing in the market are some of the factors which go to show the intention of the parties. This list of factors, in the very nature of things, cannot be exhaustive. Any one factor may or may not be decisive and it is from the cumulative effect of these that an inference will have to be drawn. (Emphasis Supplied) From the facts before us, it is clear that the traders in question did not intend to transfer beneficial ownership and therefore these trades are non genuine. 38. Rather than allowing the market forces to operate in their natural course, the traders repeatedly carried out the impugned transactions which deprived other market players from full participation. The repeated reversals and predetermined arrangement to book profits and losses respectively, made it clear that the parties were not trading in the normal sense and ordinary course. Resultantly, there has clearly been a restriction on the free and fair operation of market forces in the instant case. 39. Regulation 2(1)(c) defines fraud. Under Regulation 2(1) (c)(2) a suggestion as to a fact which is not true while he does not believe it to be true is fraud. Under Regulation 2(1) (c)(7), a deceptive behaviour of one depriving another of informed consent or full participation is fraud. And under Regulation 2(1)(c)(8), a false statement without any reasonable ground for believing it to be true is also fraud. In a synchronised and reverse dealing in securities, with predetermined arrangement to book loss or gain between pre-arranged parties, all these vices are attracted. 40. Regulation 3(a) expressly prohibits buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities in a fraudulent manner. Under Regulation 4(2) dealing in securities shall be deemed to be fraudulent if the trader indulges in an act which creates a false or misleading appearance of trading in the securities market. It is a deeming provision. Such trading also involves an act amounting to manipulation of the price of the security in the sense that the price has been artificially and apparently prefixed. The price does not at all reflect the value of the underlying asset. It is also a transaction in securities entered into without any intention of performing it and without any intention of effecting a change of ownership of such securities, ownership being understood in the limited sense of the rights in the contract. 41. According to SAT, only if there is market impact on account of sham transactions, could there be violation of the PFUTP Regulations. We find it extremely difficult to agree with the proposition. As already noted above, SAT has missed the crucial factors affecting the market integrity, which may be direct or indirect. The stock market is not a platform for any fraudulent or unfair trade practice. The field is open to all the investors. By synchronization and rapid reverse trade, as has been carried out by the traders in the instant case, the price discovery system itself is affected. Except the parties who have pre-fixed the price nobody is in the position to participate in the trade. It also has an adverse impact on the fairness, integrity and transparency of the stock market. 42. We are fortified in our conclusion by the judgment of this Court in Securities And Exchange Board of India v. Kishore R. Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 ), though it is a case pertaining to brokers, wherein it has been held at paragraph 25: 25. The SEBI Act and the Regulations framed thereunder are intended to protect the interests of investors in the Securities Market which has seen substantial growth in tune with the parallel developments in the economy. Investors confidence in the capital/securities market is a reflection of the effectiveness of the regulatory mechanism in force. All such measures are intended to pre-empt manipulative trading and check all kinds of impermissible conduct in order to boost the investors confidence in the capital market. The primary purpose of the statutory enactments is to provide an environment conducive to increased participation and investment in the securities market which is vital to the growth and development of the economy. The provisions of the SEBI Act and the Regulations will, therefore, have to be understood and interpreted in the above light. In this case it was also held that in the absence of direct proof of meeting of minds elsewhere in synchronised transactions, the test should be one of preponderance of probabilities as far as adjudication of civil liability arising out of the violation of the Act or the provision of the Regulations is concerned. To quote: 31. The conclusion has to be gathered from various circumstances like that volume of the trade effected; the period of persistence in trading in the particular scrip; the particulars of the buy and sell orders, namely, the volume thereof; the proximity of time between the two and such other relevant factors... We do not think that those illustrations are exhaustive. There can be several such situations, some of which we have discussed hereinabove. 43. The traders thus having engaged in a fraudulent and unfair trade practice while dealing in securities, are hence liable to be proceeded against for violation of Regulations 3(a), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of PFUTP Regulations.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]33. We find it difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the SAT which is endorsed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents34. We are unable to agree with the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for Rakhi Trading. Regulation 4(1) in clear and unmistakable terms has provided that no person shall indulge in a fraudulent or an unfair trade practice in securitiesIn Securities and Exchange Board of India and Ors. v. Shri Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel 43 and Ors. (2017 SCC Online SC 1148), it has been held by this Court that a trade practice is unfair if the conduct undermines the ethical standards and good faith dealings between the parties engaged in business transactions60. Coupled with the above, is the fact, the said conduct can also be construed to be an act of unfair trade practice, which though not a defined expression, has to be understood comprehensively to include any act beyond a fair conduct of business including the business in sale and purchase of securities. However the said question, as suggested by my learned Brother, Ramana, J. is being kept open for a decision in a more appropriate occasion as the resolution required presently can be made irrespective of a decision on the said question36. Ordinarily, the trading would have taken place between anonymous parties and the price would have been determined by the market forces of demand and supply. In the instant case, the parties did not stop at synchronised trading. The facts go beyond that. The trade reversals in this case indicate that the parties did not intend to transfer beneficial ownership and through these orchestrated transactions, the intention of which was not regular trading, other investors have been excluded from participating in these trades. The fact that when the trade was not synchronizing, the traders placed it at unattractive prices is also a strong indication that the traders intended to play with the market37. We also find it difficult to appreciate the stand of SAT that the rationale of change of beneficial ownership does not arise in the derivatives segment. No doubt, as in the case of trade in a scrip in the cash segment, there is no physical delivery of the asset. However, even in the derivative segment there is a change of rights in a contract. In the instant case, through reverse trades, there was no genuine change of rights in the contract. SAT has erred in its understanding of change in beneficial ownership in reverse trades. Even in derivatives, the ownership of the right is restored to the first party when the reverse trade occursFrom the facts before us, it is clear that the traders in question did not intend to transfer beneficial ownership and therefore these trades are non genuine38. Rather than allowing the market forces to operate in their natural course, the traders repeatedly carried out the impugned transactions which deprived other market players from full participation. The repeated reversals and predetermined arrangement to book profits and losses respectively, made it clear that the parties were not trading in the normal sense and ordinary course. Resultantly, there has clearly been a restriction on the free and fair operation of market forces in the instant case42. We are fortified in our conclusion by the judgment of this Court in Securities And Exchange Board of India v. Kishore R. Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368  )43. The traders thus having engaged in a fraudulent and unfair trade practice while dealing in securities, are hence liable to be proceeded against for violation of Regulations 3(a), 4(1) and 4(2)(a) of PFUTP Regulations44. As far as brokers are concerned, we are of the view that there is hardly any evidence on their involvement so as to proceed against them for violation of Regulation 7A of the Brokers Regulations and PFUTP Regulations. Merely because a broker facilitated a transaction, it cannot be said that there is violation of the Regulation. SEBI has not provided any material to suggest negligence or connivance on the part of the brokers. As held by this Court in Kishore R. Ajmera (supra), there are several factors to be considered. We would especially like to refer to the case of Angel Trading wherein the broker repeatedly wrote to the National Stock Exchange informing them about trades in the options segment that were executed at unrealistic prices and requesting them to put in mechanisms in the Options segment so that these trades are not allowed to enter the system. In the absence of any material provided by SEBI to prove the charges against the brokers, particularly regarding aiding and abetting fraudulent or unfair trade practices, we are of the opinion that the orders of SEBI against the brokers should be interfered with