SEBI v. Finquest Securities Pvt. Ltd. (intermediary enquiry, 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-58550-matched-orders-2022) by email

In April 2022 a SEBI whole-time member closed, without any direction, an enquiry into a stockbroker over 14 synchronised client trades in Crest Ventures shares between 2011 and 2014. The member found no connivance or negligence by the broker, and its clients had already been cleared.

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 29 April 2022 in an enquiry under the intermediaries rules against the stockbroker Finquest Securities Pvt. Ltd. The shares are those of Crest Ventures Ltd., and SEBI examined the period from December 2011 to October 2014. A separate adjudication order on the same broker is also in this library.

The enquiry report alleged that the broker acted for both sides of synchronised trades by clients of the so-called Bharat Patel Group, which included two of its directors, and so breached the PFUTP Regulations and the broker code of conduct on due skill and care. The order notes that five of its clients were involved in 14 impugned trades over almost three years.

The member held that synchronised trades are not unlawful in themselves, and that here nothing showed price manipulation, false volume or a link to the company; the clients took delivery, so beneficial ownership changed; and 14 trades were infrequent against a broker with a very large turnover, so it was plausible they went undetected. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in the Ajmera case on broker liability, the member found no connivance or negligence, and noted the clients themselves were cleared on 30 March 2022.

The show cause notice was disposed of without any direction.

The record does not show whether SEBI appealed, and the order does not decide whether other aspects of the trading were proper.

This library tags the matter as matched orders. 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2022-04-29 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.