SEBI v. Crosseas Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (alleged self-trades, Ess Dee Aluminium, 2022)
Dismissed
Checked against the primary document on October 8, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, in a single reading of the order; an independent second reading of 60 SEBI records agreed on every field for 56, the four misses being penalty amounts; a later sample of 50 of the SEBI records added on 9 October agreed on every field for 46. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.
SEBI alleged that the stock broker Crosseas Capital executed self-trades on its own account in Ess Dee Aluminium shares in 2012 and 2013. On remand from the Securities Appellate Tribunal, an adjudicating officer found the self-trades too few and too small to show manipulation and disposed of the case in February 2022 without penalty.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-02-28 |
| Date resolved | 2022-02-28 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Ess Dee Aluminium Limited shares |
| Venue | NSE, BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Crosseas Capital Services Private Limited |
| Techniques | Wash trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The adjudication order of 28 February 2022 was passed by a SEBI adjudicating officer under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act against Crosseas Capital Services Private Limited, a stock broker, in the matter of Ess Dee Aluminium Limited, listed on BSE and NSE. An order of 27 March 2015 had imposed a penalty of Rs 20 lakh for the alleged PFUTP violations and Rs 5 lakh for breach of the stock broker code of conduct; the Securities Appellate Tribunal quashed it on 10 February 2017 after SEBI told it a fresh look was needed.
SEBI's investigation covered September 2012 to June 2013. The show-cause notice of 12 March 2014 alleged that the broker executed self-trades on its own proprietary account in the scrip, giving a false and misleading appearance of trading, in breach of Regulations 3, 4(1), 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(g) of the PFUTP Regulations and the broker code of conduct.
On the remand, the officer examined the self-trades against total market volume in the scrip and found them too insignificant to disturb the market or mislead investors, noting that the notice did not allege other markers of manipulative intent such as frequency, timing or pattern. The officer relied on Tribunal authority that a few self-trades do not by themselves amount to objectionable trades, found nothing on record to show the trades were executed in a fraudulent manner, and so found no basis for the code-of-conduct charge either.
The proceedings begun by the notice of 12 March 2014 were disposed of without any penalty under Section 15HA or 15HB. No restraint was imposed.
The record does not show whether SEBI appealed. The order does not decide that the self-trades were accidental, only that manipulation was not established on the material alleged. It describes no criminal case.
This library tags the matter as wash trading. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's.
For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the order.
What technique is this, and how does it work?
This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.
- Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.