SEBI v. Finquest Securities Pvt Ltd (client synchronized trades, Garware Polyester, 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-61330-matched-orders-2022) by email

A SEBI whole-time member disposed of enquiry proceedings against the stockbroker Finquest Securities without any direction. The proceedings concerned seven synchronized client trades in Garware Polyester shares, and the order finds the broker's connivance or negligence was not established.

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

The order was issued on 28 July 2022 by a whole-time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India under the Intermediaries Regulations. The noticee was Finquest Securities Pvt Ltd, a registered stockbroker. The proceedings concerned trading in the shares of Garware Polyester Ltd between December 2011 and October 2014.

A designated authority's enquiry report alleged that clients of the broker, part of a group of twelve linked accounts, entered synchronized trades in which price and quantity matched and the time gap was almost zero. Finquest acted as broker on both sides of seven of those trades. The report said this breached the SEBI Act, the PFUTP Regulations and the broker's code of conduct, and it recommended suspending the firm's registration for six months.

The whole-time member did not accept the recommendation. He observed that synchronized trades are not unlawful in themselves and become so only if done to manipulate the market, to evade detection or without a real change of beneficial ownership. He found no material showing price manipulation or false volume, noted that the clients took delivery of the shares, and considered that seven trades over almost three years were few against the broker's overall turnover. He also recorded that the proceedings against the clients on the same trades had been disposed of in June 2022 without adverse directions.

He concluded that connivance or negligence by the broker was not established and disposed of the show cause notice without any direction. No penalty, suspension or bar resulted.

The record does not show whether SEBI appealed the order. It does not show any loss to investors, and it describes no criminal case.

This library tags the matter as matched orders (alleged synchronized client trades). 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. 2022-07-28 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

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.