Securities And Financial Fraud
1. Meaning and Nature of Financial and Securities Fraud
Financial and securities fraud refers to deceptive practices in the financial markets intended to mislead investors, manipulate market prices, or divert funds illegally. These activities undermine the integrity, transparency, and fairness of financial systems.
Common Features
Intentional deception or misrepresentation.
Violation of fiduciary duty or regulatory provisions.
Manipulation of stock prices, corporate accounts, or investor funds.
Concealment of material facts.
2. Types of Securities and Financial Fraud
Insider Trading – Trading based on non-public, price-sensitive information.
Market Manipulation – Artificially inflating or deflating stock prices.
Ponzi Schemes – Paying returns to old investors from new investors’ funds.
Accounting Frauds – Falsifying books, profits, or financial statements.
Banking and Credit Frauds – Diversion of loan funds, shell companies, or fake guarantees.
Cyber-enabled Financial Frauds – Online scams, digital wallet fraud, phishing attacks.
3. Regulatory Framework in India
SEBI Act, 1992 – Protects investors, regulates capital markets, and penalizes insider trading, fraud, and unfair trade practices.
Companies Act, 2013 – Sections on corporate governance, financial disclosures, and fraud.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 415–420 (cheating, misrepresentation).
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 – Penalizes laundering of proceeds from fraud.
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Regulates fraudulent practices in banks and NBFCs.
4. Role of Courts
Courts and tribunals ensure:
Accountability of promoters, directors, and executives.
Investor protection.
Strict punishment for fraudulent transactions.
Remedies like disgorgement of profits, fines, or imprisonment.
KEY CASE LAWS ON SECURITIES AND FINANCIAL FRAUD
1. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI (2012)
Facts
Sahara raised funds from investors through optionally fully convertible debentures (OFCDs) without SEBI approval.
Investors were allegedly duped, and SEBI sought refund of ₹24,000 crores with interest.
Court’s Observation
SEBI held that the scheme violated SEBI Act and regulations.
The Supreme Court directed Sahara to refund investors' money under SEBI supervision.
Highlighted the importance of regulatory oversight in collective investment schemes.
Significance
Clarified that public fund collection without regulatory approval is illegal.
Strengthened investor protection mechanisms in India.
2. National Spot Exchange Ltd. (NSEL) Case (2013–2014)
Facts
NSEL allowed trading in commodities contracts which were later deemed illegal.
Investors lost over ₹5,600 crores due to fraudulent settlement promises.
Court’s Observation
Adjudicated that directors and promoters committed financial fraud and misrepresentation.
Enforcement Directorate (ED) and SEBI intervened under PMLA and SEBI Act.
Emphasized that trading platforms cannot circumvent regulatory approval.
Significance
Case reinforced market integrity.
Strengthened regulatory accountability for exchanges and intermediaries.
3. Sahara QFL & Sahara HFL - Criminal Case
Separate from civil proceedings, criminal contempt proceedings were initiated when Sahara failed to comply with refund orders.
Observation: Willful violation of regulatory orders constitutes criminal liability.
Reinforced that corporate fraud cannot evade judicial enforcement.
4. SEBI v. Rajesh Mittal & Others (2017) – Insider Trading
Facts
Accused traded shares in Satyam Computers before public announcement of acquisition.
Used price-sensitive information to gain unlawful profits.
Court’s Observation
Supreme Court and SAT (Securities Appellate Tribunal) imposed penalties under SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015.
Profit made through non-public information was disgorged.
Highlighted that insider trading violates market fairness.
Significance
Strengthened enforcement of insider trading laws.
Introduced strict civil penalties and regulatory action without requiring criminal conviction.
5. Satyam Computers Fraud (2009)
Facts
Founder Ramalinga Raju admitted to inflating company profits by ₹7,000 crores.
Accounts were falsified for over a decade, misleading investors and auditors.
Court’s Observation
Supreme Court confirmed prosecution under IPC, Companies Act, and SEBI regulations.
Several directors and auditors were penalized.
SEBI banned key executives from holding board positions.
Significance
One of India’s largest corporate accounting frauds.
Led to enhanced corporate governance norms and stricter audit requirements.
6. Punjab National Bank (PNB) Nirav Modi Scam (2018)
Facts
Fraudulent Letters of Undertaking (LoUs) worth over ₹13,000 crores were issued to diamond merchants without proper authorization.
Systemic internal collusion allowed bypassing banking controls.
Court’s Observation
Supreme Court allowed CBI, ED, and RBI enforcement.
Highlighted failure of internal compliance and the importance of risk mitigation.
Accused were barred from leaving the country; assets were seized.
Significance
Reinforced accountability of banking personnel and promoters.
Showed intersection of financial fraud with money laundering laws.
7. Harshad Mehta Scam (1992)
Facts
Harshad Mehta manipulated the stock market using ready-forward deals and fake bank receipts, causing the BSE index to skyrocket.
Investors lost billions when the scam was exposed.
Court’s Observation
Convicted under IPC sections 420, 120B, and SEBI regulations.
Highlighted weaknesses in banking instruments and market regulation at the time.
Significance
Led to creation of stricter SEBI regulations and banking reforms.
First major market manipulation case in India.
CONCLUSION
Securities and financial fraud in India has evolved from traditional bank scams to complex corporate frauds and Ponzi schemes.
Judicial intervention, especially via the Supreme Court and SEBI, ensures investor protection, punishment for perpetrators, and systemic reforms.
Key principles from case law:
Fraudulent misrepresentation and insider trading are serious offenses.
Regulatory compliance is mandatory.
Precedents ensure accountability, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, and corporate governance reforms.
India has strengthened its legal framework, but continuous vigilance and enforcement remain critical to prevent large-scale financial scams.
RELATED Blog
comments