9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Violation of SEBI regulations and directives by the appellant leading to suspension of certificate. 2. Specific violations related to delay in delivery of securities, non-segregation of client accounts, off-market transactions, and dealing with unregistered sub-brokers. Analysis: Issue 1: Violation of SEBI regulations and directives leading to suspension of certificate The respondent, SEBI, conducted an inspection of the appellant's books of account for the financial years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. This inspection revealed violations of Rules 4(b) and (d) of the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-Brokers) Rules, 1992, as well as other provisions related to the Code of Conduct and directives issued by SEBI and the stock exchange. Consequently, the respondent ordered the suspension of the appellant's certificate for six months under the powers conferred by the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992. The appeal challenged this order of suspension. Issue 2: Specific Violations (i) Delay in delivery of securities: The appellant was found to have delayed the delivery of securities from the pool account to beneficiaries' accounts, ranging from 16 days to 5 months in 15 cases. This delay violated Clause B(1) of the Code of Conduct, which mandates immediate delivery of shares to beneficiaries' accounts after pay out. The appellant claimed the delays were authorized by clients, but one client's authority letter was initially unsigned. (ii) Non-segregation of client accounts: The inspection revealed that the appellant used clients' funds for its own expenses and deposited client money into its general account. The appellant attributed these violations to ignorance and rectified the segregation upon identification of the issue. (iii) Off-market transactions: The appellant engaged in off-market deals in 11 transactions, ceasing the practice after it was flagged as a violation during inspection. (iv) Dealing with unregistered sub-brokers: The appellant transacted with an unregistered sub-broker before their registration was granted, justifying it as an in-house extension. The delay in obtaining sub-brokership registration was rectified subsequently. The Tribunal considered the severity of the violations and the impact of the suspension on the appellant's business. While acknowledging the irregularities, the Tribunal deemed the penalties imposed as too harsh. Citing similar cases where warnings were issued for comparable irregularities, the Tribunal modified the penalty from a six-month suspension to a warning, considering the consequences for the appellant, clients, and employees.
|
