SEBI v. Bharat Jayantilal Patel and others (synchronised trades and algorithmic arbitrage, Crest Ventures, 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-57402-wash-trading-2022) by email

In March 2022 a SEBI whole-time member disposed of, without directions or penalty, charges against six traders over synchronised trades and price-moving small orders in Crest Ventures shares. He found the trades too few and too unconnected to the company to infer manipulation, and treated the small orders as exchange-approved arbitrage.

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 30 March 2022. The six noticees were Bharat Jayantilal Patel and four companies of the so-called Bharat Patel Group (Pat Financial Consultants, Fidelity Multitrade, Pasha Finance and Acira Consultancy), plus the trading firm Nirshilp Securities Private Limited. The shares are those of Crest Ventures Ltd. (earlier Sharyans Resources Ltd.).

SEBI alleged that the first five repeatedly executed synchronised trades among themselves in 30,35,839 shares, about 17.55 per cent of BSE volume, in 16 trades over eight days. It further alleged that Nirshilp placed tiny orders just above or below the prevailing quotes and executed small self-trades, so as to account for about 20 per cent of the positive and 22 per cent of the negative last-traded-price movement in two price patches between December 2011 and October 2013.

The order finds no violation. For the first five, it notes that the 16 exactly matching trades fell on eight days across nearly three years, that no link to the company or advantage was alleged, that two of them took delivery, and that the investigation showed no price effect. For Nirshilp, it accepts that the orders of 1 to 25 shares came from an exchange-approved algorithmic NSE-BSE arbitrage strategy earning margins of 20 paise to Rs 1.50, and that its few self-trades occurred before exchanges introduced self-trade prevention. Proceedings against Mr Patel abated after his death in May 2021.

All the notices were disposed of without any direction or penalty.

The record does not show whether SEBI appealed. The order makes no finding that the trading was legitimate in every respect, only that manipulation was not proved.

This library tags the matter as matched orders and 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 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.

• Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2022-03-30 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.

Same matter

The library links these 3 records because they appear to concern one matter: the same lead defendant, an overlapping technique tag and close filing dates, or a shared court docket or a release that cites the other. Records are listed by date filed.

This grouping is the library's, made by matching names, techniques, dates and citations when the site is built. It is not the regulator's or a court's determination that the records are one case, and it errs towards missing a link rather than making a false one.

Related actions

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

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.