Insider Trading And Criminal Accountability
✅ What is Insider Trading?
Insider trading refers to the buying or selling of a publicly traded company's stock by someone who has non-public, material information about that stock. Such trading undermines investor confidence and market integrity.
In most jurisdictions, insider trading based on unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI) is illegal and attracts criminal and civil penalties.
✅ Key Legal Frameworks
📌 India:
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015
SEBI Act, 1992 – Sections 11, 11B, 15G, and 24
Companies Act, 2013
📌 United States:
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 – Section 10(b) & Rule 10b-5
Insider Trading Sanctions Act (1984)
🔍 Detailed Case Laws – Indian and International
📌 1. Rakesh Agrawal v. SEBI (1993)
Court: Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), India
Facts:
Rakesh Agrawal, Managing Director of ABS Industries, was involved in a takeover deal with Bayer A.G.
Before the deal was made public, he passed price-sensitive information to relatives who bought shares of ABS.
Held:
SEBI held that Agrawal used insider information to benefit personally and manipulated the market.
However, SAT gave relief as the intention was to benefit the company, not for personal gain.
Significance:
Introduced the idea of motive in insider trading.
Even if not for personal gain, trading on UPSI violates the spirit of fair disclosure.
📌 2. Rajat Gupta Case (2012) – USA
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Facts:
Rajat Gupta, ex-McKinsey MD and Goldman Sachs board member, passed inside information to hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam (Galleon Group).
Gupta tipped Rajaratnam before Goldman’s earnings announcements and Buffett's investment.
Held:
Found guilty of securities fraud and conspiracy.
Sentenced to 2 years in prison and fined $5 million.
Significance:
Reinforced that tipping insiders can be criminally liable even if they don't trade themselves.
First high-profile Indian-American prosecuted in the U.S. for insider trading.
📌 3. SEBI v. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017)
Court: SEBI Adjudicating Officer
Facts:
Kanaiyalal Patel received UPSI about financial results of Pyramid Saimira Theatre Ltd. (PSTL).
Bought shares just before the favorable announcement, sold them later for profit.
Held:
Held guilty under Regulation 3(i) and 4 of SEBI Insider Trading Regulations.
Penalty imposed: ₹15 lakh under Section 15G of the SEBI Act.
Significance:
Showed how SEBI pursues even small-scale insider trading activities.
Emphasized importance of corporate governance and information firewall.
📌 4. Chandrakala v. SEBI (2011)
Court: SAT (Securities Appellate Tribunal)
Facts:
Chandrakala and her relatives traded in shares of Pyramid Saimira based on unpublished price-sensitive information.
They were connected to a key official in the company.
Held:
SAT upheld SEBI’s penalty of ₹15 lakh.
Stressed that close relations or access to company officials implies access to UPSI.
Significance:
Expanded the definition of “insider” to include persons indirectly connected to the company.
Highlighted circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove insider trading.
📌 5. Martha Stewart Case (2001–2004) – USA
Court: U.S. District Court
Facts:
Martha Stewart sold shares of ImClone Systems just before a negative FDA decision.
Her broker tipped her based on insider information from ImClone CEO Sam Waksal.
Held:
Found guilty not of insider trading directly, but of obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators.
Sentenced to 5 months in prison and fined.
Significance:
Not trading itself, but cover-up and lies to authorities led to conviction.
Shows how secondary actions (lying, destroying evidence) also carry criminal accountability.
📌 6. Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL) Case (1998)
Court: SEBI Investigation
Facts:
HLL bought large shares of Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. (BBLIL) before the merger announcement.
As a promoter of both companies, HLL had access to UPSI.
Held:
SEBI found the trades unethical, but not illegal at the time.
This case led to tightening of insider trading regulations.
Significance:
One of India’s first major corporate governance controversies.
Prompted SEBI to revise the insider trading regulations.
⚖️ Criminal Accountability in Insider Trading
In India, criminal liability is under:
Section 15G of SEBI Act – Civil penalty (up to ₹25 crore or 3x gains)
Section 24 of SEBI Act – Criminal liability:
Imprisonment up to 10 years
Fine up to ₹25 crore
In USA, criminal liability includes:
Fines up to $5 million
Imprisonment up to 20 years
📝 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Penalty | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rakesh Agrawal v. SEBI | India | Director passed UPSI | Relief granted | Intention-based interpretation |
| Rajat Gupta | USA | Tipped hedge fund manager | 2 years prison, $5M | Tipper liability |
| Kanaiyalal Patel | India | Traded on earnings info | ₹15 lakh | Trading on financial UPSI |
| Chandrakala | India | Insider via relationship | ₹15 lakh | Circumstantial proof sufficient |
| Martha Stewart | USA | Sold shares on tip, lied | 5 months prison | Obstruction, not direct trading |
| HLL | India | Pre-merger share purchase | No penalty | Regulation revision catalyst |
✅ Conclusion
Insider trading is a white-collar crime with serious civil and criminal repercussions. Both Indian and international laws are increasingly stringent, with zero tolerance for misuse of confidential information.
Courts and regulators globally have taken a strong stance to maintain market integrity, and cases like Rajat Gupta and Martha Stewart show that even powerful figures are not immune.
RELATED Blog
0 comments