SEBI v. Manish Mishra and Vivek Chauhan (Hemo Organic YouTube videos, 2025)

Dismissed

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 9, 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-96137-market-abuse-2025) by email

In August 2025 a SEBI adjudicating officer held that charges against Manish Mishra and Vivek Chauhan over YouTube videos promoting Hemo Organic Limited shares in 2022 were not established, because the videos could not be found. The proceedings were disposed of without penalty.

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

This adjudication order of 19 August 2025 concerns Manish Mishra and Vivek Chauhan and the shares of Hemo Organic Limited. SEBI investigated trading in the scrip from 27 May to 13 July 2022, a period in which the price rose from Rs 39.60 to Rs 74.35 by 13 June and then fell to Rs 32.95 by 13 July, while the number of public shareholders rose from 1,905 in March 2022 to 6,782 in June 2022.

SEBI's case, in a show cause notice of October 2024, was that the two noticees circulated misleading videos about the company on YouTube channels named Money Wise and The Advisor, and that new investors were drawn into the stock by them, in breach of the PFUTP Regulations. Penalty was sought under section 15HA. The noticees raised a challenge in the Gujarat High Court to an earlier search and seizure and asked that the proceedings wait, and Mr Mishra argued that his statement to SEBI had been given under duress, which the officer rejected because the statement was attested as voluntary.

On the merits, the officer found that the videos were no longer available and the channel could not be traced in the investigation, so it was impossible to see what they said, whether they carried misleading content, whether anyone viewed them and traded as a result, or whether the rise in shareholders was linked to them. Relying on a Tribunal ruling that fraud needs proof of inducement, the officer held that the violations did not stand established.

The proceedings were disposed of with no penalty or restraint.

The record does not show whether SEBI appealed, or whether the men traded profitably in the stock, which the order does not address.

This library tags the matter as a social media ramp, reflecting the alleged scheme. 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.

• Social media ramps — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2025-08-19 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 page
• 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.