Insider Trading Offences
What is Insider Trading?
Insider trading refers to the buying or selling of securities (stocks, bonds, etc.) of a publicly traded company by someone who has access to non-public, price-sensitive information (PSI) about the company.
It is illegal because it gives an unfair advantage to insiders over ordinary investors and undermines market integrity.
Legal Framework Governing Insider Trading in India
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, 1992
SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 (replaced earlier 1992 regulations)
Companies Act, 2013 (certain provisions related to disclosure)
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections dealing with cheating and criminal breach of trust can sometimes apply.
SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 – further strengthened provisions.
Key Elements of Insider Trading Offences
Insider: Any person who is connected to the company or has access to unpublished price-sensitive information.
Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI): Information not generally available and likely to materially affect the price.
Trading: Buying, selling, or dealing in securities.
Duty to Disclose: Insiders must disclose their trades to the company and SEBI.
Important Case Laws on Insider Trading in India
1. SEBI v. Ketan Parekh (2001)
Facts:
Ketan Parekh, a renowned stockbroker, was found guilty of insider trading and stock manipulation during the late 1990s. He used non-public information to rig prices of certain stocks with other brokers and companies.
SEBI Action:
SEBI banned Ketan Parekh from the securities market for 15 years and imposed a penalty.
Significance:
Landmark case that highlighted regulatory action against manipulation and insider trading.
Resulted in increased regulatory scrutiny and amendments to SEBI laws.
Established the importance of market integrity and investor protection.
2. SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. (2012)
Facts:
Sahara was accused of failure to disclose shareholding and insider trading violations during its IPO process.
SEBI Action:
SEBI ordered Sahara to refund money collected through optionally fully convertible debentures, considered securities.
Penalties were imposed for nondisclosure and insider trading violations.
Significance:
Clarified the ambit of insider trading rules extending to complex financial instruments.
Strengthened SEBI’s authority to enforce disclosure and fair trading practices.
3. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rajat Gupta (2014)
Facts:
Rajat Gupta, former director of Goldman Sachs, was charged with passing UPSI to a friend who traded on that information.
Legal Proceedings:
Although this was an international case, SEBI referenced it while tightening norms.
Gupta was penalized by US regulators; SEBI took cognizance to tighten insider trading laws in India.
Significance:
Reinforced that not only direct insiders but also tippees (recipients of UPSI) are liable.
Encouraged Indian regulators to coordinate with international bodies.
4. SEBI v. Pankaj R. Patel (Cadila Healthcare case, 2016)
Facts:
Pankaj Patel was accused of trading shares of Cadila Healthcare while in possession of price-sensitive information regarding clinical trial results.
SEBI Action:
Imposed a penalty for violating insider trading regulations.
Held that possession of UPSI and trading on that basis constitutes insider trading.
Significance:
Reinforced SEBI’s strict stance on timely disclosure and prohibition of insider trading based on clinical data.
5. SEBI v. Zafar Parvez Khan (2017)
Facts:
Zafar Khan, former MD of Religare Enterprises, was found guilty of insider trading by trading shares in possession of UPSI.
SEBI’s Decision:
Imposed penalties under SEBI (PIT) Regulations.
Highlighted importance of compliance by promoters and key managerial personnel.
Significance:
Clarified liability of top executives and their duty to uphold fair market practices.
6. SEBI v. DLF Ltd. (2018)
Facts:
DLF was charged with delaying the disclosure of UPSI related to their quarterly results and price-sensitive corporate developments.
SEBI Action:
Imposed fines and directed timely disclosure.
Emphasized the importance of timely and transparent disclosures to the stock exchanges.
Significance:
Strengthened norms on continuous disclosure obligations.
Sent a message to corporates on the importance of timely information flow.
7. SEBI v. NSE (National Stock Exchange) – Co-Location Scam (2020)
Facts:
Insiders at NSE were alleged to have shared market data early with select brokers to gain unfair advantage.
SEBI Findings:
NSE was fined heavily for lapses in systems allowing preferential access.
Charges against individual executives for insider trading-related violations.
Significance:
Expanded the definition of insider trading to include preferential access to market data.
Stressed the need for robust system safeguards in electronic trading.
Key Takeaways from Case Laws
| Case | Key Issue Addressed | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|
| SEBI v. Ketan Parekh | Market manipulation, insider trading | Long ban and penalty; market integrity focus |
| SEBI v. Sahara India | Nondisclosure of shareholding and insider trading | Refund order, penalty for insider trading |
| SEBI v. Rajat Gupta | Tipping and third-party liability | Tippees also liable, global coordination |
| SEBI v. Pankaj R. Patel | Insider trading on clinical trial information | Penalty for trading on UPSI |
| SEBI v. Zafar Parvez Khan | Insider trading by promoter/executive | Penalty; compliance by senior personnel mandated |
| SEBI v. DLF Ltd. | Delayed disclosure of UPSI | Fines imposed; stressed timely disclosure |
| SEBI v. NSE (Co-location Scam) | Preferential data access and insider trading | Heavy fines; expanded insider trading definitions |
Preventive Measures and Enforcement
Strict monitoring of trading activities of insiders
Mandatory disclosure requirements for promoters and key managerial persons
Compliance and surveillance by stock exchanges
Whistleblower mechanisms to detect violations
Heavy penalties and bans to deter violations
Conclusion
Insider trading is a serious offence in India, tackled robustly by SEBI and courts to maintain market fairness and investor confidence. The cases above underscore the evolving nature of insider trading regulation, expanding from direct trading on non-public info to include tipping, data leaks, and preferential market access.
RELATED Blog
0 comments