Background
In an article in this column earlier published in the February 2015 issue of this Journal, recent orders of SEBI debarring hundreds of persons from dealing in securities were discussed. It was alleged in these orders that trades were carried out for the purposes of making illegitimate long term capital gains (LTCG) using the stock market which would be exempt from tax. In other words, the allegation was that massive tax evasion has been carried out by indulging in price manipulation and related activities.
Soon thereafter, there have been two more Orders of SEBI (Mishka Finance, dated 17th April 2015 and Pine Animation, dated 8th May 2015) of similar nature. The earlier article referred to orders of SEBI in the case of First Financial Services Limited (“First Financial”), Radford Global Limited (both orders dated 19th December 2014) and Moryo Industries Limited (dated 4th December 2014).
The amounts continue to be large with alleged tax evasion as LTCG as high as Rs. 87 crore in case of a single individual. The price increase reflected in such profits is nearly 8300% over a period of less than two years.
There are related developments too, which will also be discussed. Apparently, on the basis of guidance by SEBI, the Bombay Stock Exchange suspended 22 companies from trading ostensibly on the ground that these companies too had certain similar suspicious features. One of the companies, however, appealed to the Securities Appellate Tribunal which reversed the SEBI’s order. It appears that now the matter is before the Supreme Court. Some parties raised a grievance that only because the second holder in their demat account was debarred, their demat account has also been frozen.
In light of these and a few other factors, an update is in order.
Review of the Orders
A quick review of what the earlier and latest orders involved is given hereafter, though for a detailed discussion the preceding article of February 2015 can be referred to. SEBI made observations as follows that were common in most companies. SEBI found that there were certain companies that had very low activities and revenues/ profits/losses. They made preferential allotment of shares that was many times its existing paid up capital to a large number of persons. The allotment price was not, according to SEBI, justified by the fundamental of such companies. There were off market transfer of existing shares held by the Promoters. The shares were subdivided and/ or bonus shares issued. The share capital thus underwent a massive expansion in terms of total paid up capital and number of shares.
Following this, the share price was allegedly increased by manipulation by entities related/connected to the Promoters. In a short period of time, the price increased many times. In case of Mishka, the increase in price was more than 60 times the cost of the shares/preferential issue price. In case of Pine, such increase was 85 times.
The persons who acquired shares off market and those who were allotted shares by way of preferential allotment sold the shares at such high price. The shares were allegedly purchased by persons connected with the Promoters. Thus, SEBI alleged that the shares went back to the same group from whom shares were acquired. Since there was a gap of more than one year between the date of purchase and sale (also because of lock in period in case of preferential allotment of shares), the gains were long term capital gains and thus exempt from tax. SEBI alleged that this whole exercise was undertaken to generate such bogus LTCG using the stock market.
SEBI referred the matter, inter alia, to income-tax authorities. It also debarred the Company, its Promoters, the persons who had acquired the shares and the persons who gave the exit route to such persons, from accessing the capital markets and also dealing in the stock markets. The demat accounts of such persons were also frozen.
22 companies have already been identified by the BSE and their trading suspended though in one case, SAT has reversed the order of suspension. However, the matter appears to be in appeal before the Supreme Court now.
Debarring other companies? – directions of BSE and decision of SAT
The issue already involves hundreds of persons facing such a bar and hundreds of crores of allegedly bogus LTCG. From press reports, the total amount of such allegedly bogus LTCG may be Rs. 20,000 crore taking into account further companies being investigated. Thus, it is likely that more such orders involving other companies may be released soon.
The Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) suspended trading of twenty-two other companies with effect from 7th January 2015 by a notice dated 1st January 2015. One of the companies, viz., 52 Weeks Entertainment Ltd. (formerly known as Shantanu Sheorey Aquakult Ltd.), appealed to SAT against this suspension. It is interesting to study this decision though it relates to the facts of one of the twentytwo companies.
The original notice of BSE did not give any reason for the suspension, nor had it given any opportunity to the companies to be heard. SAT directed BSE to give hearing and record decision, which BSE did on 12th January 2015. The SAT Order contains certain details relating to this company which are given below and then proceeds to set aside the Order of BSE, alongwith certain directions.
The company was suspended from 2001 to 2012 on account of non-payment of listing fees, NSDL charges, etc. The company decided to revive its operations in 2012. The company made three preferential allotment of shares in 2013/2014 after taking due approval from BSE as required by law. The aggregate preferential allotment was of 3,07,55,000 shares, and it appears that this took the share capital from 41,25,000 to 3,48,80,000 shares (i.e., by about 8.50 times). The public holding post the preferential issue was about 91%.
The suspension was made, BSE stated, on account of directions given by SEBI in its meeting with stock exchanges. SEBI gave certain parameters to identify companies for this purpose. These were (a) non-existence of the company at the address mentioned (b) making of preferential allotment with or without stock split and following end of lock in period, rise in volumes in trading and exit of the preferential allottees (c) company having weak financials which did not warrant the rise in price. The company disputed the order giving several reasons. It stated that the company did exist at the address given. It pointed out the existence of a representative there who had offered the BSE representative who had visited there to talk to the concerned person on phone.
The company had many upcoming operations/projects. Though some of the preferential allottees were also such allottees in case of Radford/Moryo orders, this cannot be a ground for suspension of trading. After hearing representatives of SEBI and BSE, SAT , vide its order dated 13th March 2015, set aside the order (the two members gave their reasons separately, and in following paragraphs, reasons given by Presiding Officer, Justice J. P. Devadhar are given).
It was noted that in other cases, SEBI had found market manipulation, etc. and passed formal orders while it had passed no such orders in the present case. it also noted that even the existence of the three parameters specified by SEBI were not established. BSE suspended trading “… even though there is not an iota of evidence to show that the appellant-company or its promoters/ directors have directly or indirectly indulged in market manipulation.” (per justice devadhar). SAT also noted that the price had risen from Rs. 2.67 to Rs. 149 but still, assuming there was market manipulation, no action was taken against the manipulators but trading in the company suspended instead. Justice devadhar observed that “…it is not open to SEBI to direct the Stock exchanges to suspend the trading in the securities of the companies if they satisfy certain parameters fixed by SEBI which have no bearing whatsoever with the alleged market manipulation.”
Justice devadhar further stated that, “..the fact that some of those preferential shareholders have allegedly indulged in market manipulation cannot be a ground to consider that all preferential shareholders are market manipulators.”
The SEBI order was set aside. However, directions were also given that the Promoters of the company shall not buy/sell/deal in the securities of the company till 30th june 2015. further, SEBI/BSE could suspend the trading in the securities of the company and restrain the promoters/directors/preferential allottees if prima facie evidence of manipulation by them is found.
It appears that an appeal has been filed against the order of SAT before the Supreme Court for this matter of 52 Weeks entertainment Limited.
Debarment of Joint Account Holders
There was another interesting decision of SEBI. It appears that SEBI has frozen the accounts of certain persons named in its orders. However, in some cases, those accounts where such persons were second holders were also frozen. the result of this was that even though the first holder may not be a person who has been debarred, simply having a debarred person as a second holder resulted in such account getting frozen. this happened in the case of ms. Sachi agrawal and Ms. Sneha Agrawal. Their parents were debarred from dealing in securities in the matter of moryo industries Limited. However, though each of them had a separate demat account, such account was also frozen because their mother, Ms. Neeli Agrawal, who was second holder, had been debarred by an order. They prayed to SEBI claiming that the securities in such account belonged to them exclusively. They also provided several documents including certificates of Chartered accountant in support of their contention. However, SEBI was not satisfied. It held that in view of section 2(1)(a) of the Depositories Act, joint holders were joint beneficial owners. Taking a view that “…it is likely that the aforesaid beneficiary demat accounts would be used by Ms. Neeli agarwal for sale or purchase of securities thereby defeating the purpose of the interim order and ongoing investigation”, it refused to unfreeze the account.
Conclusion
The facts in such cases are clearly prima facie of serious concern. however, it is also seen that orders have been passed by SeBi till now against 5 companies, their Promoters and hundreds of shareholders. They have been debarred indefinitely from accessing the capital markets and dealing in securities. The orders are ad-interim and eXparte. It appears, from the statements of SEBI itself, that it could be a long period before which the final orders would be passed. Trading in 22 other companies has been suspended by BSE, of which in one matter, SAT has reversed the matter and now the matter is before the Supreme Court. It also is seen that SEBI has not yet given opportunity to most of the persons involved to present their case. In some cases, prima facie, it is submitted that orders are arbitrary and may cause injustice to people who are not involved in the alleged manipulation, etc. also, a common order has been passed against all persons even though the orders themselves describe substantially different alleged roles played by different groups.
Interesting question arises: Can SEBI question the eventual motive of a person trading on stock exchange? Can SEBI, purely on suspicion that the transaction is with an intent to avoid/evade tax, of financing, etc., take action against such persons? Parties may have many reasons for dealing through the stock exchange, not all of which would involve violations of Securities Laws. it appears from past decisions that what was relevant was whether price manipulation was involved.
The next few months, and eventually perhaps at least a couple of years will be interesting to watch. Apart from SEBI passing orders in case of several other companies, it is also likely that there will be appeals to SAT and Supreme Court. There will also be objections raised by parties before SEBI itself who will be obliged to confirm or modify the directions in individual cases. More importantly, these cases may also help clarify the role of SEBI in matters where there may be avoidance or violation of other laws such as income-tax.
It will also be interesting to watch how the income-tax department, with whom the information about such transactions has been shared by SeBi, deals with such transactions. More particularly, whether it disallows outright the claims of the parties to exemption leaving them exposed to interest, penalties and even prosecution. Some cases relate to AY 2013-14/2014-15, the returns for which have already been filed while other cases related to AY 2015- 16 for which there is time to file returns.
From the legal and other perspectives, the coming years will result in interesting developments which will be worth closely watching.
