SEBI v. Sunny Bhatia and others (front running of a family-group client, 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-97078-matched-orders-2025) by email

In October 2025 a SEBI adjudicating officer found that a dealer for a family trading group traded ahead of its orders through his own account and his relatives' accounts. The four noticees were penalised Rs 35 lakh jointly and severally.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

3.5m 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

The adjudicating officer, Amit Kapoor, issued this order on 6 October 2025. The noticees are Sunny Bhatia, a dealer for a large client called the Eastman Group, and three relatives whose accounts he used: his wife Surbhi Chopra Bhatia, his mother Mamta Rani and his father Ashok Kumar.

SEBI investigated trading from January 2019 to December 2022 and alleged that the dealer, knowing the impending orders of the group, placed his own trades first in the same scrips through the four accounts and then closed the positions after the group's orders moved prices. The show cause notice counted 107 instances and a gain of about Rs 18.46 lakh. The noticees replied that there were far fewer instances and that they had ample trading margin.

The order rejects those replies. It finds that having margin does not excuse trading ahead of a client whose orders one is entrusted to place, that the 107 instances were established, that the relatives were equally responsible for lending their accounts, and that the conduct interfered with the ordinary forces of supply and demand. It finds violations of section 12A(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations.

For the penalty under section 15HA, the officer noted that investor losses were not quantified and the conduct was not repeated, but stressed the need for deterrence. The four noticees must pay Rs 35,00,000 jointly and severally within 45 days, failing which recovery proceedings can follow.

The record does not show whether any noticee appealed to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, whether the penalty was paid, or whether any criminal case exists. SEBI imposes monetary penalties in such orders and did not impose a market ban in this one.

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. 2025-10-06 SEBI adjudication 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

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.