SEBI v. Kishan Vishram Nanda and others (Sanctum Wealth front running, 2024)

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-80981-front-running-2024) by email

On 31 January 2024 a SEBI whole-time member found that an equity dealer at Sanctum's broking arm and members of his family front ran trades of Sanctum's portfolio management arm. The order barred the dealer for three years, six relatives for one year, ordered Rs 34.85 lakh disgorgement and fined the dealer Rs 5 lakh.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

500k 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 order of 31 January 2024 was made by a whole-time member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India against eight noticees: Kishan Vishram Nanda, an equity dealer, and seven relatives or family-controlled Hindu undivided families. It concerns the trades of the portfolio management arm of Sanctum Wealth Management Private Limited, now Sanctum Wealth Private Limited, which SEBI called the big client.

A surveillance alert led to an investigation of the period January 2018 to April 2021, and a show cause notice of May 2021. SEBI alleged that Mr Nanda, working as a dealer for the group's broking arm, knew of the portfolio arm's pending orders, opened or used several family trading accounts, and traded ahead of those orders and squared off for profit. His relatives were alleged to have allowed their accounts to be used.

The order found the allegations established for seven of the eight noticees and held that penalty was attracted under the section for fraudulent and unfair trade practices. The proceedings against the fourth noticee, a family HUF that the order records as dissolved after its head died, were disposed of without directions.

The directions barred Mr Nanda from the securities market for three years and from directorships, key management posts and association with listed or intermediary firms for three years. Six other noticees were barred from dealing for one year, with four of them also barred from such roles for one year. All seven were ordered, jointly and severally, to disgorge Rs 34,84,605 with 12 percent simple interest from 16 October 2020. Only Mr Nanda was assigned a penalty, Rs 5 lakh.

The record does not show whether anyone appealed or paid, or how much of the disgorgement was recovered. It describes no criminal case and does not quantify the loss to Sanctum's clients.

This library tags the matter as front running. 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.

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

Timeline

1. 2024-01-31 SEBI final 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
• 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.

Related actions

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

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.