SEBI v. Harishkumar Kantilal Patel and others (synchronized trades, Global Infratech and Finance, 2022)

Judgment entered

✓ 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-63362-matched-orders-2022) by email

A SEBI adjudicating officer fined 19 connected noticees Rs 5 lakh each, Rs 95 lakh in total, for synchronized trades in Global Infratech and Finance shares on the BSE between December 2017 and February 2018 that created a misleading appearance of trading. Most of the noticees did not respond, and the officer proceeded without their replies.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

9.5m INR

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. This regulator states penalties in INR. The figure is recorded as published and is not converted, so it does not appear in the USD totals or medians used elsewhere on this site.

What is alleged to have happened

The adjudicating officer of the Securities and Exchange Board of India decided the matter on 23 September 2022. It is a second SEBI order about trading in Global Infratech and Finance Limited, which is listed on the BSE, and covers a different period, 20 December 2017 to 15 February 2018, from the earlier order about the same stock.

SEBI alleged that 19 noticees, whom it linked to one another, executed buy and sell trades among themselves in which price and quantity matched and orders were entered within a minute or less. It alleged that this created a misleading appearance of trading and was done without any intention to change beneficial ownership, in breach of section 12A of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations.

Most of the noticees did not reply or attend, so the officer proceeded ex parte on the record. He applied a test that synchronized trades are those where buy and sell orders are placed within a minute at the same rate and quantity. He found the same pattern throughout the group's trades and held that they were fraudulent, made to mislead investors.

Each of the 19 was penalised Rs 5,00,000 under section 15HA of the SEBI Act, Rs 95,00,000 in total, payable within 45 days.

The record does not show whether anyone appealed, whether penalties were paid, or any profit made. No market bar was imposed and the order describes no criminal case.

This library tags the matter as matched orders (synchronized 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. 2022-09-23 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 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.