SEBI v. Panchal Shanti Lal (alleged reversal and synchronized trades, Swan Energy, 2025)

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-96663-matched-orders-2025) by email

After a tribunal sent the case back, a SEBI adjudicating officer found there was not enough evidence that a retired clerk had himself opened and operated the demat account used in alleged reversal and synchronized trades in Swan Energy shares. The proceedings against him 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

On 17 September 2025 a SEBI adjudicating officer issued an order concerning Panchal Shanti Lal in the matter of Swan Energy Limited. SEBI's earlier order of 27 April 2022 had penalised thirteen connected entities, including Mr Panchal, Rs 5 lakh each for trading in January to March 2015. The Securities Appellate Tribunal remitted his case on 9 May 2025 for fresh consideration, because he said his PAN was misused and he had never traded.

SEBI's allegation, set out in a notice of 16 July 2020, was that thirteen connected entities executed 2,263 reversal trades of about 7.03 lakh shares on BSE and NSE, and also synchronized trades, creating artificial volume of about 12.89 per cent of market volume with no change in beneficial ownership. It charged section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act and the PFUTP Regulations. The only link between Mr Panchal and the others was a mobile number shared with another noticee.

Mr Panchal, who is about 67 and retired in 2017 from a clerical post, said that he lives in Barwani, Madhya Pradesh, never held a demat or trading account, never got the original notice, and had lodged a police complaint about the misuse of his identity. The officer noted that the account's identity papers showed addresses in Odisha and Kerala, that Mr Panchal's own documents showed a long-standing Madhya Pradesh address, and that the link to the others rested solely on the common phone number, which he said was not his.

The officer concluded that the genuineness of the account opening documents could not be established and that there was not enough information to show that Mr Panchal himself opened and operated the account. The allegations were therefore not established against him, and the notice was disposed of with no penalty.

The record does not show what happened to the sums already recovered from his bank account under the earlier order, or the position of the other twelve entities, which this order does not address. The order is a dismissal as to one person, not a finding on whether the trading was manipulative.

This library tags the matter as matched orders and wash trading (reversal and synchronized trades). 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.

• Matched orders — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Wash trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2025-09-17 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.

Related actions

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

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.