SEBI v. Hemant Ghai and others (trading ahead of TV stock recommendations, 2025)

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-92756-front-running-2025) by email

SEBI found that a CNBC Awaaz news anchor traded through his wife's and mother's accounts ahead of stock recommendations he was about to broadcast, and ordered a five-year market ban, disgorgement of about Rs 6.16 crore plus interest, and penalties totalling Rs 1.35 crore across four noticees. The order held the broker's authorised person liable for fraud and the broker liable for supervisory failings only.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

13.5m 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

On 19 March 2025 a SEBI whole-time member issued a final order against Hemant Ghai, a news anchor at the Hindi business channel CNBC Awaaz, his wife Jaya Hemant Ghai, his mother Shyam Mohini Ghai, MAS Consultancy Service, an authorised person of the broker, and Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd. The case had a long history: SEBI issued an interim order in January 2021, confirmed it in September 2021 and impounded about Rs 2.95 crore in 2022. A reinvestigation followed, and the final notice was issued in February 2023.

SEBI alleged that 266 trades in the wife's and mother's accounts between 2018 and 2020 (168 buy-today-sell-tomorrow trades and 98 intraday trades) were synchronised with stock recommendations that Mr Ghai made or co-hosted on CNBC. The order records that Mr Ghai controlled both accounts, using his own contact and bank details, and that trading in them stopped after exchange and broker alerts in 2020. It also records a sharp fall in profits once the restrictions came off.

The member found that the trades were informed by advance knowledge of upcoming recommendations, treated that knowledge as confidential information belonging to the channel, and held the trades to be a fraud on the market under the PFUTP Regulations. He held Jaya Ghai liable for allowing her account to be used and found that MAS had submitted fabricated order instruction sheets and kept no proper record of order instructions. He found the broker negligent in supervising MAS but not fraudulent, and declined to record a PFUTP finding against it. He imposed no penalty on Shyam Mohini Ghai, who said she did not know about the account and had no apparent share of the gains.

The three family members were restrained from the securities market for five years. Mr Ghai and Jaya Ghai were jointly and severally ordered to disgorge the gains in the order's table, about Rs 6.16 crore, with simple interest at 12 per cent a year from 31 March 2020 to the date of the interim order, with sums already impounded credited against it. Penalties were Rs 50 lakh each on Mr Ghai and Jaya Ghai, Rs 20 lakh on MAS under section 15HA and a further Rs 10 lakh on MAS and Rs 5 lakh on Motilal Oswal under section 15HB, Rs 1.35 crore in all.

The record does not show whether any noticee appealed this order, whether the sums were paid, or whether the channel took any separate action. The order is a regulatory finding and sanction, not a criminal conviction.

This library tags the matter as front running (trading ahead of broadcast recommendations). 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. 2025-03-19 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
• Order (PDF)

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.