SEBI v. Raushan Kumar Jha (circular trades, Octant Interactive Technologies, 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.
In June 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer dropped a penalty case against Raushan Kumar Jha, accused of circular and reversal trading in Octant Interactive Technologies shares in 2009. The officer found no convincing evidence that his trades created artificial volume or moved the price.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-06-24 |
| Date resolved | 2022-06-24 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | Octant Interactive Technologies Ltd shares |
| Venue | BSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Raushan Kumar Jha |
| Techniques | Matched orders |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
An adjudicating officer of SEBI issued this order on 24 June 2022 concerning one noticee, Raushan Kumar Jha, in the matter of Octant Interactive Technologies Ltd. A 2019 adjudication order had penalised 35 entities for violations of Regulations 3 and 4 of the 2003 fraud and unfair trade practices regulations. The Securities Appellate Tribunal remitted the case as to Mr Jha in April 2022 because he had not been properly served, and a fresh adjudicating officer was appointed.
SEBI's original allegation, set out in a show cause notice of August 2013, was that Mr Jha was part of linked trading groups that created artificial volume through circular, reversal and synchronised trades and off-market transfers during the period January to September 2009, and that his trades lifted the last traded price of the shares.
Mr Jha argued that the notice did not say which shares he had transferred off-market, that 94 of his 95 trades on the exchange had matched with persons who were not noticees, and that the delay of some twelve years left him unable to recall details. The order records that he made 76 buy trades and 19 sell trades on the exchange and that his net contribution to the last traded price was small compared with that of the wider group.
The officer held that, without cogent material showing that the noticee's trades created artificial volume or affected the price, no violation of the regulations was made out. The notice was disposed of without penalty.
No sanction was imposed. The record does not show whether SEBI appealed the dismissal, and the order does not discuss any criminal case.
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
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.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEBI v. Shreedhar Yellaiah Kodam (synchronized trades, Well Pack Papers, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-09-22 | Matched Orders , Price Manipulation | — | dismissed |
| SEC v. Corey Ortiz (free riding and parking, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-03 | Free Riding And Parking , Matched Orders | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Hanif Shekh and others (price and volume manipulation in five scrips, Mauria Udyog and others, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-06-30 | Matched Orders , Pump And Dump +1 | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Christopher Flagg, Daquan Lloyd and Travis Treusch (free riding and parking, 2026) | SEC | 2026-04-30 | Free Riding And Parking , Matched Orders | — | judgment |
| SEBI v. Harsha Ishvarbhai Solanki and others (trading in ANI Integrated Services, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-02-12 | Price Manipulation , Matched Orders | — | judgment |
| SEBI adjudication orders on illiquid stock options at BSE (2026 batch) | SEBI (India) | 2026-01-05 | Matched Orders | — | judgment |