SEBI v. B. Ramalinga Raju and others (Satyam Computer Services, remand order, 2023)

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. 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-79496-misleading-issuer-disclosure-2023) by email

On 30 November 2023, on remand from the Securities Appellate Tribunal, a SEBI whole-time member re-set the sanctions on six Satyam Computer Services figures. He directed Rs 6,24,09,82,520 to be disgorged with 12 percent interest and restrained the two Raju brothers until July 2028, subject to Supreme Court appeals.

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 issued this order on 30 November 2023 in the matter of Satyam Computer Services Limited. The six noticees are former chairman B. Ramalinga Raju, former managing director B. Rama Raju, B. Suryanarayana Raju, the family holding company SRSR Holdings Pvt Ltd, former chief financial officer Vadlamani Srinivas and former finance vice president G. Ramakrishna. The order was made on remand after the Securities Appellate Tribunal set aside parts of SEBI's earlier orders.

SEBI's case began with Mr Ramalinga Raju's confession that the company's books showed non-existent bank balances and accrued interest, understated liabilities and overstated debtors. SEBI found that senior officers had falsified the accounts since January 2001 to present a rosy picture to investors, and that while the false position persisted the Raju family and others sold shares, including through SRSR Holdings, whose pledged shares were sold by lenders in December 2008 when the price fell.

The order, which applies the earlier findings that the Tribunal had upheld, treats the shares sold during the fraud period as sold while holding information the market lacked and computes the gain after allowing an intrinsic-value deduction of 23.25 percent on the sale value, in line with the Tribunal's directions. It sets the unlawful gains at Rs 20,43,46,875 each for the two Raju brothers, Rs 51,44,41,030 for B. Suryanarayana Raju, Rs 518,36,55,714 for SRSR, Rs 9,58,26,672 for Mr Srinivas and Rs 3,83,65,354 for Mr Ramakrishna.

SEBI directed the six to disgorge the amounts, Rs 6,24,09,82,520 in total, each bearing its own share, with simple interest at 12 percent a year from 7 January 2009. It restrained the two Raju brothers from the securities market until 14 July 2028 and imposed no fresh restraint on the others, while noting that several remain restrained by Supreme Court direction. The order takes effect only when the Supreme Court directs in the pending appeals. No monetary penalty is set in this order.

The record does not show the outcome of those Supreme Court appeals. Criminal proceedings over the Satyam fraud are known to exist but this order does not describe them, so this record does not treat the matter as having a criminal parallel.

This library tags the matter as misleading issuer disclosure and insider 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.

• Misleading issuer disclosure — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2023-11-30 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.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.