SEBI v. Tushar Gupta (Tata Absolute Return Fund front running, 2024)

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-81780-front-running-2024) by email

On 27 February 2024 a SEBI chief general manager disposed of front-running proceedings against Tushar Gupta without any direction. SEBI had alleged he made about Rs 50.6 lakh trading ahead of Tata Absolute Return Fund orders, but the order found no evidence that he had advance knowledge of them.

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 of 27 February 2024 was issued by a chief general manager of the Securities and Exchange Board of India against one noticee, Tushar Gupta. It arose from a surveillance alert in August 2020 about possible trading ahead of orders from the Tata Absolute Return Fund, a scheme run by a registered alternative investment fund, which SEBI called the big client. Related interim and final orders against other entities had already been made over the same fund.

A show cause notice of June 2022 alleged that Mr Gupta's trades in equity derivatives between March and June 2020 ran ahead of the fund's orders, that this accounted for about Rs 50.6 lakh in profit, and that his trading was heavily concentrated in such days. His derivatives turnover rose from nothing before the examined window to more than Rs 656 crore within it. He was charged under the section on fraudulent and unfair trade practices and the 2003 regulations.

Mr Gupta argued that his orders were placed in person through a friend's father's contact at a broker's dealer and were based on his own views, and he challenged how the profit had been computed. The order accepted the way SEBI timed the alleged first and second legs of the trades and counted 144 instances as consistent with front running in pattern.

But the order found no solid evidence that he knew of the fund's impending orders, no link to the fund's dealers or to other suspected entities, and no proof that information was passed to him. It said the odd pattern and the size of his trades against his income pointed to likely involvement but fell short of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It therefore held the allegation not substantiated and disposed of the notice without direction.

The record does not show whether SEBI appealed, and the order describes no criminal case. The amount of any gain was left undecided because the violation was not established.

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. 2024-02-27 SEBI order disposing of notice without direction

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.