SEBI v. Finquest Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Shailesh Shah Securities Pvt. Ltd. (broker case, 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-58468-wash-trading-2022) by email

In April 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer closed, without penalty, proceedings against two stockbrokers accused of facilitating synchronised trades and small self-trades by their clients in Crest Ventures shares. With the clients themselves cleared, no case against the brokers remained.

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 adjudicating officer, Soma Majumder, decided the matter on 27 April 2022. The noticees are two stock brokers, Finquest Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Shailesh Shah Securities Pvt. Ltd., and the shares are those of Crest Ventures Ltd. (earlier Sharyans Resources Ltd.). It is the broker-side companion of the 30 March 2022 whole-time member order on the same facts.

SEBI alleged that Finquest was the broker and counterparty broker for 14 of 16 synchronised trades by the so-called Bharat Patel Group on BSE, about 18.77 lakh shares, entered from two terminals of Finquest. Two of its directors were also among the group. It alleged that Shailesh Shah Securities facilitated small repetitive trades and self-trades by its client Nirshilp Securities that were said to move the price. Both were also alleged to have failed to show due skill, care and diligence as brokers.

The order notes that the clients' trades were found not to violate the PFUTP Regulations in the whole-time member's order, which disposed of the case against them without directions. For Nirshilp's trades it separately accepts the explanation of an exchange NSE-BSE arbitrage strategy, in which almost equal quantities were bought on one exchange and sold on the other within seconds, and notes the notice looked only at the BSE leg. With no violation by the clients, it finds none established against their brokers.

The proceedings were disposed of with no penalty for either broker.

The record does not show whether SEBI appealed, and the order is not a finding that the trading was in every respect proper, only that manipulation was not established.

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. 2022-04-27 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 2 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.