Sebi bars Hemant Ghai, two others from dealing in securities for five years

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) on Wednesday barred former news anchor Hemant Ghai and two others, including his wife, from dealing in securities for five years for their alleged involvement in fraudulent practices.

 

The market regulator directed Hemant and his wife Jaya Ghai to jointly disgorge over ₹6 crore illegal gains while also imposing a penalty of ₹50 lakh each. Sebi also imposed fines of ₹30 lakh on MAS Consultancy Service and ₹5 lakh on Motilal Oswal Financial Services (MOFSL).

 

“When high-profile TV anchors, hired by leading business channels to inform and educate investors, exploit material non-public information for personal gain, they betray the trust that underpins market transparency,” said Sebi’s Whole-Time Member Ashwani Bhatia in the order.

 

The regulator found that trades executed through the accounts of Ghai’s family members were synchronised with stock recommendations aired on his shows. These accounts took advance positions before the broadcasts, which subsequently triggered surges in the volume and price of the recommended scrips.

 

The case originated with an interim order from Sebi in January 2021. A subsequent probe expanded the investigation period and scrutinised additional stock recommendations made by Ghai on the news channel. Sebi noted that MAS Consultancy, an “authorised person” affiliated with MOFSL, facilitated Ghai’s fraudulent trades and concealed the misconduct by submitting fabricated order instruction sheets to the regulator. MOFSL, in turn, was faulted for failing to adequately supervise MAS. 

Bombay Dyeing calls BSE, NSE fines ‘improper’

 

Textile major Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company is contesting fines levied by the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) and BSE for allegedly not securing a special resolution from shareholders prior to the appointment of an independent director who had reached the age of 75. 

In a letter addressed to both stock exchanges, dated March 19, the company informed them that the company's board of directors had reviewed the fines and deemed them “improper”.

  The company argued that the shareholder was not a requirement, and compliance was sufficient if the approval was obtained within three months of the director's appointment.

  Despite disputing the fines, the company’s board has advised to remit the imposed amounts under protest while simultaneously submitting waiver applications to the exchanges for reconsideration. The outcome of the waiver applications could have implications for how listed companies approach similar appointments in the future, say experts.