SEBI v. Nouveau Shares and Securities Limited (broker enquiry, Peacock Industries, 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.

Report an error in this record (sebi-57087-wash-trading-2022) by email

In March 2022 a SEBI whole-time member closed an enquiry into a stockbroker accused of helping clients match trades in Peacock Industries shares in 2000. The manipulation-related allegations were not sustained and the broker received only a warning over an unrelated ledger debit.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

A SEBI whole-time member, Ananta Barua, decided the matter on 23 March 2022 in an enquiry under the intermediaries rules against the NSE-registered broker Nouveau Shares and Securities Limited. The shares concerned are those of Peacock Industries Limited, which rose from about Rs 8.50 to over Rs 47 on NSE between August and September 2000.

SEBI alleged that the broker aided and abetted its client, Goyal Investments, and other linked clients in structured deals in which trades were matched between related buyers and sellers, including on 28 August 2000 when two brokers' clients traded about 65 per cent of the day's volume at the top of the price band. It also alleged self-trades, frequent client code changes, a Rs 3.3 lakh brokerage refund to the client as an inducement, and a breach of the broker code of conduct.

The order accepted the enquiry report that the evidence was too thin to show the broker had colluded in the structured trades. It treated the client's self-trades, at about 0.4 to 2 per cent of daily volume, as too small to show a false appearance of trading or a price effect, and noted the events were 21 years old. It found the refund allegation unsupported and took a lenient view of the code changes, which predated the mandatory unique client code.

The one finding against the broker was that it had debited a client's ledger for staff salary payments of Rs 16,000 and Rs 4,000, a lack of due skill and diligence. Taking account of its suspension from NSE since 2006 and the passage of time, the member issued a warning and imposed no monetary penalty or bar.

The record does not show whether the underlying trading in 2000 was in fact manipulative, only that this broker's part in it was not established.

This library tags the matter as wash trading and price manipulation. 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 2 techniques 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.
• Price manipulation — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2022-03-23 SEBI order

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• SEBI order
• Order (PDF)

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.