Top Banner
Compliances Penalties Opportunities Securities Laws & Pavan Kumar Vijay
93
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Compliances Penalties

Opportunities

Securities Laws

&

Pavan Kumar Vijay

Page 2: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Laws Regulating Capital Markets

Companies Act, 1956 SCR Act, 1956 SEBI Act, 1992

Public Ltd Co’s Stock Exchanges Intermediaries

Listed Co’s Listed Co’s

Self Regulatory Org

Depositories Act 1996

NSDL

CDSL

DP’s/ RTA

Listed Co’s

Page 3: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

• Administrative proceedings

• Monetary penalty proceedings

• Disciplinary proceedings

• Prosecution

• Civil litigation

Page 4: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

11 General Powers

a) Promoting / Development / Regulating Securities Market;

b) Regulating the working of Stock Exchange

c) Registering & Regulating Intermediaries;

d) Promoting & Regulating Self-Regulatory Organizations;

e) Prohibiting Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to securities;

f) Prohibiting Insider Trading in securities;

g) Regulating substantial acquisition of shares and take over of the Companies;

Page 5: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

11 General Powers Contd..

Power to make orders for :

• suspension of trading in any security;

• restraining to access the market & prohibit any person to sell, buy, deal in securities;

• suspend any office bearer of a Stock Exchange and Self Regulatory Organization from holding such position;

• Impound and retain the proceeds and securities in respect of any transaction under investigation.

Page 6: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

• Power to call information:

Kania committee recommends that SEBI be empowered to ask for the information from the professionals subject to the professional’s right to withhold the privileged information under the professional code of conduct.

Page 7: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

11A

Relating to Issue of Securities

In order to protect the investors it has the powers :

• Matters relating to issue of capital, transfer of securities and other incidental matters;

• Manner how the disclosures have to be made by companies;

• Prohibit any company from issuing prospectus, any offer document or advertisement soliciting money from public for issue of securities. specify the conditions based on which the prospectus may be issued

• Specify the requirements of listing, transfer of securities and other matters incidental thereto.

Page 8: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

To Issue Directions

If after making or causing to be made an enquiry, the board is satisfied that it is necessary-

In the interest of investors, or orderly development of securities market; or

To prevent the affairs which are detrimental to the interest of investors or securities market.

To secure the proper management of such intermediary or person.

11B

Page 9: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

It may issue such directions which are in the interest of the investors and securities market.

to any Intermediary, person or class of persons associated with the securities market;

to any company in respect of matter specified in section 11A.

To Issue Directions Contd.11B

Page 10: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 11A, 11B• Integrated Amusement Ltd. v. SEBI

• Facts: Company raised certain amount towards share capital by public issue. Having come to know that appellant had not utilised funds for purpose specified in prospectus, SEBI directed appellant to submit details of funds so utilised but appellant failed to do so.

- SEBI declared appellant as vanishing company and issued directions debarring appellant from associating with any capital market activity and also prohibiting them from accessing capital market for a certain period

- Whether SEBI is empowered to issue directions in the interest of investors to any person or class of persons referred to in section 12 or associated with the securities market - Held, yes

- Whether it could be said that a company having its shares listed on the exchange is out of the reach of sections 11 and 11B - Held, no

- Whether taking into consideration the scope and reach of sections 11 and 11B it could be said that the SEBI was lacking authority to issue direction to the appellant - Held, no

Page 11: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 11B• Roopram Sharma v. SEBI

• Facts : Appellant, a company-secretary in practice, was held guilty of violating terms of issue of prospectus, circulars and SEBI guidelines on disclosure and protection of investors by SEBI in the public issue of a company with which he was alleged to be associated

• Consequently, invoking section 11B respondent directed that appellant be prohibited from accessing capital market and dealing in securities market in any capacity for a period of three years from date of order

• Appellant challenged said prohibition contending that alleged violation had taken place after he vacated office of director. Further, he challenged validity of direction issued against him as tantamounting to imposition of penalty which was beyond scope and purview of section 11B

• Whether SEBI is competent to issue a direction under section 11B which tantamounts to imposition of penalty - Held, no

• Whether a remedial action is normally seen as one intended to correct, remove or lessen a wrong, fault or defect and in instant case there was no nexus between appellant’s action and said direction issued to prevent appellant indulging in such action in future - Held, yes

• Whether said direction was a measure remedying mischief arisen as a result of appellant’s action within meaning of section 11B - Held, no

• Whether said direction was extraneous to charge established against appellant - Held, yes - Whether impugned direction was to be set aside - Held, yes

Page 12: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 11B• Paresh M. Parekh v. SEBI

• Facts : Whether it is duty of company and its management and intermediaries and other agencies associated with public issue and listing, to ensure that payment received after closing of public issue is not accounted for computing quantum of subscription received, but a person who has belatedly applied in public issue cannot be said to have violated any legal provision - Held, yes

• Whether belated submission of application with or without request consideration only disables applicant from getting allotment of shares, but no penal consequences would visit him on that count - Held, yes

• Whether market manipulation resulting in defrauding the investors is a serious charge, which has to be established with reasonably good evidence, if not beyond doubt - Held, yes

• Whether if one is to be charged for helping a person in committing an offence, it is necessary to bring on record commissioning of offence by other person - Held, yes –

• Whether where order prohibiting appellants from dealing in securities market for a period of two years had failed to establish charge levelled against appellants, it was of no consequence as to specific legal provision invoked to issue directions against appellants and, therefore, it was not necessary for Tribunal to examine legality or otherwise of direction issued by respondent to appellants under section 11B - Held, yes

Page 13: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 11B• Gold Multifab Ltd. v. SEBI

• Facts : Appellant-company made public issue of equity shares, Respondent-SEBI carried out an investigation into matter and issued show-cause notice to appellant for violation of provisions of sections 69, 73(3A) and 77 of the Companies Act, 1956, SEBI Guidelines on Disclosure and Investor Protection and also terms and conditions of prospectus

• After adjudicating show-cause notice, SEBI found that charges were substantiated and passed impugned order under section 11B, Whether adjudicating authority can go beyond scope of show-cause notice and adjudicate charge other than one specified in show-cause notice - Held, no

• Whether since in show-cause notice it was not clear as to which specific guideline/terms and conditions were violated, adjudication of said two charges, i.e. violation of SEBI Guidelines on Disclosure and Investor Protection and Violation of terms and conditions of prospectus and decisions based thereon could not be sustained - Held, yes

• Whether, therefore, charges against appellants, which needed be taken cognizance of were that of violation of sections 69, 73(3A) and 77 of Companies Act, 1956, in light of facts stated in show-cause notice - Held, yes

• Whether for enforcement of provisions of Companies Act, there are provisions in Companies Act itself and no external assistance for purpose is required or is permissible - Held, yes

• Whether SEBI can resort to provisions of SEBI Act for purpose of enforcing provisions of Companies Act in absence of an enabling provision for purpose in SEBI Act - Held, no

• Whether, therefore, section 11B could not be invoked by SEBI to take action for violation of provisions of sections 69, 73(3A) and 77 of Companies Act - Held, yes

Page 14: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

To Investigate

Where the Board has reasonable ground to believe that:

a) Any transaction that are dealt in a manner detrimental to the investors or securities market;

b) Intermediary violates any provision of the Act, rules, regulations made under it or any order passed by the chairman.

It may Direct any person to investigate the affairs of such intermediaries or any other person concerned and to report thereon to the Board.

11C

Page 15: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

To Cease and Desist the Proceedings

The board may pass cease & desist order in the following case:

• Where any provision of the Act, rules and regulations has been violated or is likely to be violated.

• In case of insider trading or market manipulation.

11D

Page 16: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Adjudication Powers

For the purpose of adjudging under sections 15A - 15HB,

the Board appoints any of its officer not below the rank of Divisional Chief to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry,

after giving any person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard for the purpose of imposing any penalty. 

Governed by SEBI (Procedure of Holding Enquiry & Imposing Penalty by Adjudicating Officer) Rules, 1995

15I

Page 17: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 15 I• Adjudication - Powers of adjudicator

• Whether decision as to imposition of penalty for failure to perform statutory obligation is a matter of discretion left to Adjudicating Officer but that discretion has to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances - Held, yes

• Words and phrases - ‘he may impose such penalty’ occurring in section 15-I and ‘the Adjudicating Officer shall, have due regard to the... factors’, occurring in section 15J of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992

Page 18: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 15 I• Doogar & Associates Ltd. v. SEBI

• Facts: Appellant was lead manager to public issue - Respondent found that appellant had failed to exercise due diligence, proper care and independent professional judgment as required to be exercised by it in terms of clause 2 of Schedule III of Regulation 13 of 1992 regulations

• Respondent suspended appellant’s certificate of registration for two months

• Whether oral submissions are also to be treated as replies and, therefore, order issued within 30 days of completion of oral submissions could be said as having been issued within time-limit prescribed in regulation 40(3) - Held, yes

• Whether when there was nothing on record to show that appellant had failed to discharge specific duties assigned to it in its capacity as lead manager and it was not case of respondent that omissions and commissions attributed to appellant were of any serious consequences to investors in public issue or that appellant had intentionally suppressed material facts, suspension of certificate of registration for two months was unjustified - Held, yes

• Whether, however, since appellant was lead manager to issue, it would be sufficient if suspension period was allowed to run for one month - Held, yes

Page 19: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

15J

Factors to be taken care by Adjudication Officer

While adjudicating the quantum of penalty under section 15-I, the adjudicating officer shall take care of following factors :

the quantum of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default;

The amount of loss caused to an investor or group of investors as a result of the default. 

The repetitive nature of default

Page 20: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case law – 15J• J.M. Mutual Fund v. SEBI

• Facts : First appellant was a mutual fund and second appellant was an asset management company - A penalty was levied by SEBI on sponsors of first appellant, for violating Regulations, 1997 - That information was not incorporated in offer documents prepared by appellants and vetted by SEBI

• Subsequently, appellants devised seven schemes proposed to be launched - Sponsors approved said schemes without informing appellants about penalty levied on them despite letters written by compliance officer of appellants to sponsors - After getting approval, draft offer documents were filed by appellants with SEBI under regulation 28 of SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulation. Thereafter, SEBI imposed penalties on appellants for failure to comply with sections 15E and 15D

• Whether since penalty on first appellant (mutual fund) would adversely affect unit holders, no penalty should be levied on it - Held, yes

• Whether since SEBI knew about penalties on sponsors and did not raise that issue while approving offer document and also second appellant did not wait for a reply from sponsors before submitting offer document for vetting, there was an element of lack of due diligence - Held, yes

• Whether, by applying conditions laid down in section 15J, penalty imposed on second appellant was excessive as there was no disproportionate gain by second appellant and there was no loss caused to investors - Held, yes

• Whether, therefore, order passed against first appellant was to be set aside and order passed against second appellant was to be modified and penalty was to be reduced - Held, yes

Page 21: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

• Issue related manipulations, mis-statement in prospectus, gray market operations and irregularities in the issue process.

• Post listing market manipulations like price rigging, circular trading

• Insider trading

• Manipulations relating to takeover and acquisitions

• Other violations of provisions of SEBI act/regulations

Page 22: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Listed Companies / Intermediaries / Any other person

15A

Contravention Penalty

Failure to furnish any document, return or report to the Board

Penalty of Rs.1 Lakh Per Day during which such failure continues or Rs. 1 Crore,

whichever is less

File any return or furnish any information, books or other documents within the time specified therefore in the regulations

To maintain books of account or records

Page 23: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case law – 15ASECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

Subhash A. Gandhi

v.

Securities and Exchange Board of India

• Section 15A, read with, reg 7 of the S EBI (SAST) Reg, 1997 - Penalty - For failure to furnish information, return, etc.

• Appellant informed target company about his shareholding exceeding prescribed limit of 5 per cent by .03 per cent but did not inform about aggregate shareholding and exact percentage of shareholding in company in desired format - Hence, SEBI imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 on appellant for a delay in submitting information's in prescribed format as prescribed under regulation 7

• Whether since appellant had complied with part of requirements and had exceeded limit only by .03 per cent, this was a case for taking a lenient view and consequently, penalty could be reduced to Rs. 1,000 - Held yes

Page 24: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 15ASECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

NNV Finance Ltd. v. SEBI

• Section 15A, read with reg 7 of the SEBI (SAST) Reg, 1997 - Penalty - For failure to furnish information, returns, etc.

• Appellant had acquired shares representing 14 per cent of paid up equity and voting share capital of target company in two phases - Respondent-SEBI imposed penalty upon appellant for violation of regulation 7(1) on ground that acquirer had not made necessary disclosures to stock exchanges where shares of target company were listed

• Facts revealed that certificate of posting to all stock exchanges was of same date and one stock exchange had admitted of having received communication

• Whether when one of stock exchanges had admitted of receipt of communication, there was a strong presumption that remaining two exchanges would also have received same and since respondent had not produced any evidence to counter said presumption and made no enquiries that said other stock exchanges had denied having received intimation, no case was made out against appellant and, therefore, order imposing penalty was to be set aside - Held, yes

Page 25: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Intermediaries

15B

Contravention Penalty

Failure to enter into an agreement with his client

Penalty of Rs.1 lakh per day during which such failure continues or Rs. 1 crore, whichever is less

Page 26: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Listed Company / Intermediaries

15C

Contravention Penalty

Failure to redress the grievances of investors, after having been called upon by the Board in writing to redress the grievances of investors.

Penalty of Rs.1 lakh per day during which such failure continues or Rs. 1 crore, whichever is less

Page 27: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 15CSECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

Dharnendra Industries Ltd.

v.

Securities and Exchange Board of India

• Section 15C SEBI Act, 1992 - Penalty - For failure to redress investors’ grievances –

• Appellants companies having failed to redress investors’ grievances, SEBI debarred them from securities market for five years

• Whether since matter involved public interest and appellants’ annual reports for year 2002-03 admitted that there were 121 complaints, which had not been attended to, SEBI was justified in passing impugned order, as it was a clear case of mismanagement and appellants were bound to attend grievances of shareholders within a stipulated time schedule - Held, yes

Page 28: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 15CSECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

Indo Biotech Foods Ltd.

v.

Securities and Exchange Board of India

• Section 15C SEBI Act, 1992 - Penalty - For failure to redress investors’ grievances

• SEBI directed certain officials of appellant-company to dissociate themselves from securities market for five years for having not redressed two out of total 108 investors’ grievances

• Appellant-company denied any such grievances pending unredressed and contended that even if there be any such complaint pending, it would attend same to full satisfaction of investors - Whether in view of facts of case, action taken by respondent was totally disproportionate to alleged misdemeanor by company or any of its directors, and, therefore, impugned order was to be set aside - Held, yes

Page 29: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Mutual Funds / Collective Investment Scheme (CIS)

15D

Contravention Penalty

Doing such activity without obtaining certificate of registration, OR fails to comply the conditions specified in the governing regulations

Penalty of Rs.1 lakh per day during which such failure continues or Rs. 1 crore, whichever is less

Page 30: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Asset Management Company

15E

Contravention Penalty

Fails to comply with any of the regulations providing for restrictions on the activities of the asset management companies

Penalty of Rs.1 lakh per day during which such failure continues or Rs. 1 crore, whichever is less

Page 31: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Stock Broker15F

Contravention Penalty

Fails to issue contract notes Penalty not exceeding 5 times the amount of contract note .

Fails to deliver any security Penalty of Rs. 1 lakh per day during which such failure continues or Rs. 1 crore , whichever is less

Charges excess brokerage Penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh or 5 times the amount of brokerage excess charged, whichever is higher.

Page 32: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Any Insider

15G

Contravention Penalty

Contravention of provisions of Insider Trading Regulations

Penalty of Rs. 25 crore or 3 times the amount of profits made out of such insider trading, whichever is higher.

Page 33: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 15GSECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

S. Ramesh and S. Padmalata Asis Bhaumik

v.

Securities and Exchange Board of India

• Section 15G SEBI Act, 1992, read with reg 3 of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 - Penalty - For insider trading

• Appellants, being company secretary and executive director of a company, had bought shares of that company on behalf of their family members on basis of unpublished price sensitive information, which was not known to general public but to appellants as employees of company

• They, later on, tendered said shares in open offer announced by acquirer at higher price, thereby making an unlawful gain - SEBI held appellants guilty of misconduct of insider trading and imposed penalty - Appellants admitted that they had made a mistake and were willing to pay back profit earned by sale of shares

• Whether any violation of provision relating to inside trading will make a person guilty of being an inside trader - Held, yes - Whether however, taking into account said financial position of both parties, their admission and their offer to pay back profit, which they had earned by sale of said shares, penalty was to be reduced - Held, yes

Page 34: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Any Acquirer / Person Acting in Concert (PAC)

15H

Contravention Penalty

Contravention of provisions of Takeover Code Regulations

Penalty of Rs. 25 crore or 3 times the amount of profits made out of such failure, whichever is higher.

Page 35: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 15HSECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

VLS Finance Ltd.

v.

Securities & Exchange Board of India

• Section 15H SEBI Act, 1992, read with Reg 10 of the SEBI (SAST) Reg, 1997

• In terms of a pledge document appellant advanced certain amount to ‘T’ Ltd., which, in turn, deposited certain shares with appellant by way of collateral securities As per agreement, acquirer had right to sell shares pledged to realize its dues - Later, parties entered into a fresh MOU whereby shares pledged were transferred in name of pledgee-appellant but those shares continued to be held as collateral securities and pledgee signed a power of attorney in favour of ‘K’ and ‘B’ of ‘T’ Ltd., for purpose of attending and voting on its behalf at all general meetings of ‘T’ Ltd. - Appellant made an application to SEBI seeking for exemption from provisions of Regulations of 1997, which was rejected –

• Thereafter, because of failure of appellant to make public announcement of acquisition of shares of ‘T’ Ltd., Adjudicating and Enquiry Officer imposed penalty under section 15H(ii) - Whether since it was appellant whose name was entered as beneficial owner in register of members of company and, under section 41(3) of the Companies Act, it was appellant who was deemed to be a member of ‘T’ Ltd. with effect from date of transfer of shares, transfer of shares in name of appellant for realizing its lawful dues amounted to acquisition as defined in 1997 Regulations - Held, yes

• Whether, therefore, voting rights vested with appellant and question whether he exercised those rights himself or through ‘K’ and ‘B’ through power of attorney did not alter situation with respect to acquisition in any manner whatsoever - Held, yes - Whether in light of that position, there was nothing objectionable in impugned order and same was to be upheld - Held, yes

Page 36: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 15HSECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

Krishna Naik

v.

Securities and Exchange Board of India

• Section 15H of the SEBI Act, 1992, read with reg 11 of the SEBI (SAST) Reg, 1997 - Penalty - For non-discloser of acquisition of shares and takeovers

• Appellant, who was promoter of a company, was holding 30.82 per cent equity shares of said company - In year 2002, when company was facing certain difficulties, appellant advanced it an unsecured interest free loan and approached IDBI for restructuring by converting loan into equity shares

• Accordingly, company reissued to appellant forfeited equity shares which constituted 6.4 per cent of total share capital of company - However, SEBI imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs upon appellant for violation of regulation 11(1) of 1997 Regulation as increase in shareholding was more than creeping limit of 5 per cent and acquisition had taken place without making public announcement - It was found that preferential allotment stood annulled by a subsequent resolution of company and that until 9-9-2002, acquisition by way of preferential allotments was entitled to automatic exemption from discipline of Regulations - Whether since it was first default on part of appellant and gain to appellant or loss to investor, apart from being non-quantifiable, could at most be only notional in an admittedly illiquid scrip, appellant was entitled to be viewed leniently and penalty was to be reduced to Rs. 1 lakh - Held, yes

Page 37: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 15HSECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

Continental Device India Ltd.

v.

Securities and Exchange Board of India

• Section 15H SEBI Act, 1992, read with regulation 3(1)(c)(ii) of the SEBI(SAST) Reg, 1997 - Penalty - For non-disclosure of acquisition of shares and takeovers

• SEBI, holding that appellant-company allotted certain shares on preferential basis to promoters without disclosing identity of proposing allottees, consequential changes in voting rights, changes in board of directors and shareholding pattern, imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on appellant-company

• However, from material on record, it appeared that it had disclosed all facts in board’s resolution to SEBI and also informed same details at annual general meeting to shareholders and that only violation was that identity of class of persons was not fully disclosed

• Whether since most of details were correctly disclosed to SEBI; there was no loss to shareholders; management of company had not changed after issue; and issue was listed in two stock exchanges, misconduct was of technical nature and, therefore, fine was to be reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 25,000 - Held, yes

Page 38: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Case Law – 15HSECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

Diamond Projects (P.) Ltd.

v.

Securities and Exchange Board of India

• When a person comes forward and makes clean breast of violation of regulation, if such disclosure is bona fide, SEBI should pass a workable order so that it can be implemented

• Section 15H SEBI Act, 1992, read with reg 3(1)(c) of the SEBI (SAST) Reg, 1997 - Penalty - For non-disclosure of acquisition of shares and takeovers

• Appellant- company admitted mistake of having acquired 21.96 per cent equity shares of target company without informing SEBI but denied having any intention to cheat public - It had incurred heavy losses and had not met its liability - SEBI imposed penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs - Whether acquisition of shares in target company by appellant without disclosing it to respondent amounted to violation of regulation 3(1)(c) - Held, yes - Whether however, in matters of strict liability, SEBI must pass a workable order to maintain ability of company to make effective payment - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, taking a practical view of matter and fact that appellant had incurred heavy loss, penalty imposed should be reduced to Rs. 1,50,000 - Held, yes

Page 39: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Listed Companies / Intermediaries / Any Other Person

15HA

Contravention Penalty

Indulgence in any Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices.

Penalty of Rs. 25 crore or 3 times the amount of profits made out of such practices, whichever is higher.

Page 40: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Listed Companies / Intermediaries / Any Other Person

15HB

Contravention Penalty

Contravention of any of the provision of the Act where no specific penalty is specified

penalty which may be extend to Rs. 1 Crore

Page 41: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Recommendations by Kania Committee• The Kania committee recommends

that section 15HB of SEBI Act, may be amended to provide for monetary penalty for the failure to comply with the orders of SEBI

Page 42: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Listed Companies / Intermediaries / Stock Exchanges Any Other Person

23

Contravention Penalty

- trades in contraventions

of various sections of the

Act,

- operating non-

recognized exchanges,

- non-compliance with the

orders of SAT,

- non-compliance with the

conditions of listing etc.

Imprisonment up to

10 years

OR

Fine up to Rs. 25 crore

OR

Both

Page 43: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Any Person

23A

Contravention Penalty

(a) Failure by any person to furnish any information, document, books, returns or report to a stock exchange within specified time

Rs. 1 lakh for each day during which such failure

continues

OR

Rs. 1 crore

Whichever is LESS

(b) Failure by any person to maintain books of accounts or records as per listing agreement or conditions.

Page 44: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Broker/ Listed Company/Proposed Listed Co.

23C

Contravention Penalty

Failure to redress the grievances of investors after having been called upon by

SEBI to do so

Rs. 1 lakh for each day during which such failure

continues

OR

Rs. 1 crore

Whichever is LESS

Page 45: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Listed Company/Collective Investment Scheme/ Mutual Funds

23E

Contravention Penalty

Failure by a company or any person managing collective

investment scheme or mutual fund to comply with

Listing / Delisting Conditions

Penalty not

exceeding

Rs. 25 crore

Page 46: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Any Person

23F

Contravention Penalty

Any person dematerialized securities more than the

issued securities

OR

delivers unlisted securities in the exchange

Penalty not

exceeding

Rs. 25 crore

Page 47: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Stock Exchange

23G

Contravention Penalty

Failure or neglect by an exchange to furnish

periodical returns to SEBI

OR

make or amend its rules/byelaws as directed by

SEBI

OR

comply with directions of SEBI

Penalty not

exceeding

Rs. 25 crore

Page 48: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Any Person

19A

Contravention Penalty

a). Failure to furnish any information, document, books, returns or report to SEBI

b). Failure to file any return or furnish any information, books or other documents under the Act

c). Failure to maintain books of accounts or records

Rs. 1 lakh for each day during which such failure

continues

OR

Rs. 1crore,

whichever is LESS

Page 49: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Applicability

Any Person

19G

Contravention Penalty

Failure to comply with any provision of the Act, the rules or regulations or byelaws made or directions issued by SEBI there under for which no separate penalty has been provided

Penalty not

exceeding

Rs. 1 crore

Page 50: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Kania Committee recommendations

• The kania group recommends that in sections 15A to 15H of SEBI Act, the following words

“one lac rupees for each day during which such failure continues or one core rupees, whichever is less.”

• May be replaced by the words

“not exceeding 1 lac rupees for each day during which such failure continues subject to a maximum of 1 crore rupees”

for the sake of clarity

Page 51: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Independent of penalty imposed by Adjudicating Officer under the Acts.

Authority not lower than Session Court.

The complaint should be filed within the period of Limitation under Limitation Act, 1963

Page 52: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Offences for which prosecution can be launched24 Offence Punishment

Non Compliance of any of the provision of the Act, rules or regulations made hereunder.

Imprisonment may extend to 10 Years; or

With fine, which may extend to 25 crore rupees, or

With Both

Failure to pay the penalty

OR

Failure to comply with any directions

Imprisonment not less than 1 month but may extend to 10 Years; or

With fine, which may extend to 25 crore rupees, or

With Both

Page 53: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Kania Committee recommendations

• It has been recommended that section 24(2) be amended to make non compliance of SEBI order an offence under the provisions of the said section.

Page 54: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Offences for which prosecution can be launched23M Offence Punishment

- Non Compliance of any of the provision of the Act

- Non-Compliance of any of the provision for which no

punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act.

Imprisonment may extend to 10 Years; or

With fine, which may extend to 25 crore rupees, or

With Both

Failure to pay the penalty

OR

Failure to comply with any directions

Imprisonment not less than 1 month but may extend to 10

Years; or

With fine, which may extend to 25 crore rupees, or

With Both

Page 55: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Offences for which prosecution can be launched20Offence Punishment

Contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of the Act or of any rules or regulations or byelaws made there under

Imprisonment up to 10 years

OR

Fine up to Rs. 25 crore

OR BOTH

Failure to pay the penalty imposed by adjudicating officer or to comply with any of his directions or orders

Imprisonment up to 10 years (not less than one month)

OR

fine up to Rs. 25 crore

OR BOTH

Page 56: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

27

Contravention: Non-compliance any of the provisions of Acts, rules or regulations made hereunder.

Applicability:

a.) Every person in charge of and responsible to, the

company, at the time the offence,

b.) Where it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any

director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, every such person.

Exclusion: Person proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission  

Page 57: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Holding inquiry for any contravention by intermediaries

Governed by SEBI (Procedure for Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalties) Regulations, 2002.

Regulations 4 specifies the regulations, contravention of which, activates the enquiry proceedings.

APPLICABLE ONLY TO INTERMEDIARIES

Page 58: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Contravention Noticed

Exparte decisionIf no response

SCN to Party

Party to file Reply

Appointment of Enquiry Officer

Notice Issued

Reply within 15 days

Hearing Date Fixed

Enquiry Report by EO

Representation Before EO

Order by Chairman

Impose Minor or Major Penalty

For contravention of the provision of regulations mentioned in Reg 4

Page 59: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Minor Penalties

Warning or censure;

Prohibition to undertake any new assignment for a period of six months;

Debarring from carrying out the activities as intermediaries for a period upto six months.

Suspension of certificate of registration for a period upto 3 months.

Page 60: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Comparison Between Enquiry Officer

& Adjudicating Officer

Page 61: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Points of Difference

• Governing Regulation

• Definition

• Matters of Enquiry

• Basis of Appointment

• Manner of Service of Notice or order

• Appeal to SAT

• Imposition of Penalties

Page 62: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Major Penalties

Cancellation of certificate of registration;

Prohibition to undertake any new assignment for a

period exceeding six months;

Suspension of certificate of registration for a period

exceeding three months;

Debarring from carrying out the activities as intermediaries for a period exceeding six

months.

Page 63: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Major Penalties ONLY to be imposed where:

The contravening party has been guilty of:

Price or market manipulation of any scrip, index or of insider trading;

Violation of conditions of registrations;

Failure to obey directions OR failure to comply with the monetary penalty;

Repeated offence by an intermediary.

Page 64: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Appeals can be made in following cases:

Orders passed by SEBI (after Securities Laws amendment Act, 1999)

OR

Orders passed by an adjudicating officer

OR

Refusal, Omission or failure of Stock Exchange to list the securities

Page 65: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Time limit for filing appeal:

In case of orders of SEBI or adjudicating officer, within 45 days from the date on which copy of order is received.

AND

In case of Stock Exchange refusal, failure or omission within 15 days of specified date of section 73(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956

Page 66: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Appearance before SAT

Any person aggrieved by the orders can either appear in person or authorize the following persons to appear before SAT:

Chartered Accountant or;

Company Secretary or;

Cost Accountant or;

Legal practitioner or;

Any of its officers.

Page 67: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts:

EXCEPT for the appeals to SAT under section 15 T of or to Central Government under section 20

No civil court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any matter which the Board or the adjudicating officer is empowered to act

And

No injunction shall be granted by any court or authority in respect of any action taken or in pursuance of any order passed by the Board or the adjudicating officer.

Page 68: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Appeal to Supreme Court:

Aggrieved by the decision of or order of SAT or for determining any question of law arising out of the order,

Appeal can be filed to Supreme Court within 60 days of the date of communication of the decision or order of SAT.

Page 69: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Offences can be compounded subject to following conditions :

The offence must not be punishable with Imprisonment only or with imprisonment and fine under SEBI Act ,

The offences can be compounded either before or after the institution of proceedings,

The offence can be compounded by SAT or by the Court under which the proceedings are pending,

The provision of SEBI Act shall be applicable notwithstanding any thing stated in Criminal Procedure Code.

24A

Page 70: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Kania Committee recommendations

• Compounding of offence

It has been recommended that, SEBI Act may be amended adopting the provisions on the line of section 15 of FEMA in terms of which any contravention may be compounded within 180 days from the date of receipt of an application made by the person committing such contravention.

The group further recommends that the said section may be amended to provide for compounding of all violations any not only offences, on the lines of provisions contained in section 279(2) of income tax act 1961.

Page 71: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Special Powers to grant immunity from Penalty Can be granted by Central Government

Where the alleged person gives a full and true disclosure in respect of the alleged violation

Central government imposes such conditions as it may think fit.

No immunity granted where the prosecution has already been instituted.

Immunity once granted can be withdrawn on non compliance of any condition imposed or giving of false evidence.

24B

Page 72: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Recent Judgements

• Can penal laws be Resptropective? – NO

• According to the article 20(1) of the constitution:

• Decision in the cases of :

– Rameshchandra manshukani NRI Vs. adjudicating officer, SEBI – Appeal No. 151/2004

– DSQ holdings

“penalties unless specifically made retrospectively must inevitable be only with effect from the date of the amendment”

Page 73: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

• Retrospective changes

It has been recommended that SEBI be empowered to make regulation with respect to retrospective effect in the matter relating to charging of fees or procedural matters for the limited purpose of giving relief and not for imposing new liabilities and obligations.

Recommendations of Kania Committee

Page 74: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Recent Case laws

• Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. SEBI

where breach of regulations is not deliberate and non-disclosure of information is due to lack of understanding of law, penalty should not be levied under the section 15A of the SEBI Act.

Page 75: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Recent Case laws contd.

• Sanjay Jhalani Vs. Whole Time Member, SEBI ( 2005) 63 SCL 444 ( SAT- Mumbai):

• It was held that on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellants having suffered the inordinate delay of 9 years in passing the impugned order and taking into account the facts that the impugned order had been in force without it being stayed and also taking into account that the matter relates to the transactions made in the year of 1996, it would be appropriate that period of suspension be reduced from 2 years to 9 months.

Page 76: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Recent Case laws contd.

• Golden Glade Plantations P. Ltd. Vs. SEBI, ( 2005) 63 SCL 450 (SAT- Mumbai):

• While allowing the review petition of the appellant, the Tribunal observed that there is no method contemplated under the provision of the Act to execute any order of repayment made by the SEBI. The only course open for the SEBI is to prosecute the appellant for not complying with the order of repayment. That would not help the investors cause. What is needed is a flexible approach by which the appellant could repay the investors.

Page 77: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Recent Case laws contd.

• Pavak Securities Ltd. Vs. SEBI: ( 2005) 63 SCL 455 ( SAT - Mumbai):

• It was held that though the appellant have been found guilty of violation of code of conduct, however, having regard to the fact that in similar cases, SEBI has taken lenient view and ordered minor or less severe penalties, penalty in the matter be reduced from Rs. 150,000 to Rs. 50,000.

Page 78: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Recent Case laws contd.• Vinaychand Kothari & Ors Vs SEBI

• Penalty reduced from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs 10,000/-

• The respondent has imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- for certain technical violation of the Takeover Code (Regulation 7 & 8).

• It cannot be forgotten that the adjudicating officer changed and the whole matter took more than 2 years before the proceedings commenced for no fault of the appellant. It also cannot be forgotten that the appellants have placed documents to show that they have complied with the Regulations which was not accepted by the adjudicating officer since it was not produced at the time of reply to the show cause notice.

• The adjudicating officer is bound to look at the documents placed before him and cannot decline to consider the documents merely because it was given belatedly. It is another matter if the adjudicating officer rejects the document as not being genuine, but refusing to look at the documents does not augur well. Taking all these factors into account and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-

Page 79: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Recent Case laws contd.• Dhaval Shah Vs. SEBI

• The respondent by an order dated December 30th, 2004 imposed a penalty of Rs.1 lakh against the appellant for violating regulations 7(1) and (2) of the SEBI (SAST) Regulations,1997. As per the Regulations, there is a duty cast on the acquirer to inform the target company whenever an acquirer purchases more than 5% of the shares or voting rights in the target company. This must be done within 4 working days as required under regulation 7(2). The appellant had crossed the threshold limit of 5% on June 22, 2002 and it failed to inform the company within 4 working days of receipt of the allotment of shares.

• It was however brought below the threshold limit of 5%

 

• The Tribunal also held that the ignorance of law is no excuse but an erroneous interpretation of the law is a mitigating factor especially if such interpretation is honest and bona fide to the knowledge of the appellant. The appellant also relied on the Judgement of Cabbot International Capital corporation vs. Adjudicating Officer, SEBI where this Tribunal took the same view,

• Taking all these factors into account and the precedents on the subject, & reduced the penalty from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.25,000/-.

 

Page 80: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Recent Case laws contd.• Nokia Finance International Finance P. Ltd. Vs  SEBI

 

• In exercise of the powers conferred under section 15-I(2) of the SEBI Act, 1992, read with Rule 5 of SEBI Adjudication Rules, respondent impose a penalty of Rs. 18,00,000/- on the basis of unjust enrichment and disproportionate gain accrued to the entity.

• The appellant had been given more than one opportunity (three summonses) and a personal hearing to submit the required information which was submitted only partially. It is a serious case of excess dematerialized shares than the authorized capital being traded in the market.

• The appellant could have availed of the opportunity of submitting all the required information and come clean, but he failed to do so. Decided that there is no violation of natural justice in this particular case and the penalty has been imposed as per the regulations. The impugned order indicates that the various factors to be reckoned under Section 15(J) of SEBI Act, 1992 were duly considered before deciding on the quantum of penalty imposed. In view of the fact that appellant has failed to give the necessary information to the respondent for conducting investigation into a very serious irregularity in the market, Sat appeal.

Page 81: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Development in the securities laws

has bought up new avenues

for the professionals

Page 82: Sebi Compliances and Penalties
Page 83: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

• Securities Issue management & due diligence.

– Public & right issues

– ADR, GDR, EURO issues

– Bonus issues

– Preferential issues

– ESOP / ESOS

– Debt Instruments

– Buy back

– Takeover, Acquisition, Buy out, Open Offers etc

Page 84: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

• Securities Audit

– Listing Agreement ,

– Takeover regulations,

– Prohibition of Insider Trading regulation,

– Depositories Act & regulations

– Companies Act & rules

– Indian Stamp Act,

– Income Tax Act,

– FEMA

Page 85: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

• Intermediaries registration & Audit,

– Stock Brokers

– Depository Participant

– Registrar & Transfer Agent (RTA)

– Mutual Fund

– Portfolio Manager

– Merchant Banker

Page 86: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

• Inquiry & Investigations– Unfair Trade Practice

– Fraudulent Trade Practice

– Insider Trading

– Price Rigging

– Takeover

Page 87: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

• Other Areas

– Appearance before SAT,

– Informal Guidance

– Legal consultancy

Page 88: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Opportunities are unlimited

Page 89: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

• Understand Industry Needs

• Gain ‘Substantial Knowledge’ – Learning little more than what is included in the course curriculum

• Provide PQRS – Productivity, Quality, Reliability and Service

• Use 3Cs - Creativity, Confidence and Communication

• Conduct Periodical SWOT Analysis of Self

• Use Technology to Beat Technology

All you need to do is:

Page 90: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Co-operate instead of Competing

Page 91: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

Optimism Comes from Co-operation

Page 92: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

It’s a matter of Perception and Positive Thinking

Page 93: Sebi Compliances and Penalties

www.corporateprofessionals.com