SEBI has passed an order dated 16 June 2016 in the case of Beejay Investment & Financial Consultants Private Limited and others that has interesting implications. SEBI now has power to forfeit profits made through illegitimate transactions in securities markets. Generally, SEBI directs that such
illegitimate profits made by parties through price manipulation, insider trading, etc. should be forfeited.
In the present case, however, there is an interesting twist. To put it simply , in this case, the profits were made in the ordinary course of business. Hence, the profit made can be said to be legitimate. However, the transactions were carried on during a time when SEBI had debarred the parties from carrying on such transactions. SEBI ordered forfeiture of such profits.
Background of case
The rationale behind forfeiting (i.e., disgorging) of illegitimate profits needs discussion. SEBI often finds manipulations and other illegalities in the securities market. Profits made are illegitimate or losses are avoided. Such profits are usually made at the cost of persons such as investing public, the company, etc. The credibility of markets also suffers. SEBI has considerable powers to penalise and prosecute such persons. It also has powers to issue directions such as ordering such persons not to access the capital markets, not to trade in such markets, suspend/cancel registration of intermediaries, etc. The monetary penalty can be a multiple of such profits.
However, a question arises about the profits made by such persons through such wrong doings. Clearly, allowing them to retain such profits would be allowing them to keep the rewards of their wrongful acts. Thus, irrespective of other actions taken, it is in fitness of things that such profits are taken away from the wrong doers. Such forfeiture is called disgorgement. At one time, there were two views whether SEBI had power to disgorge such profits. However, a recent amendment has clarified that SEBI has and did have the power to disgorge profits and issue directions restricting their operations.
For example, a person may buy shares of a company at a low price, manipulate the share price of the company by various means to a higher level, and then sell the shares to unsuspecting investor. Such profits are clearly illegitimate. SEBI thus requires power to disgorge these profits. This is of course apart from other adverse action SEBI would take. For example, one such other adverse action is debarring such a person from dealing in securities markets for a specified period.
If a person, who has been so directed not to deal in securities for a specified period, yet violates it and deals in securities, there are obviously consequences under law. Such a person can be, as will be seen, penalised under law and even prosecuted.
However, there can be an interesting situation. A person has been held to have carried out price manipulation in the capital market. He has then been directed not to deal in the capital market for a specified period of time. He yet carries out such dealings by buying and selling shares. The dealings are, however, in the ordinary course of business and no manipulation is alleged or even suspected. In such a case, still, there is violation of SEBI’s directions. The issue is whether profits made out of such trades be disgorged? Even if the person has not committed any violation while carrying out such trades?
Facts of the case
In this case, SEBI had passed orders against certain persons whereby it had “prohibited them from buying, selling or dealing in the securities market, directly or indirectly.”. While such directions were in force, such parties allegedly dealt in shares in the securities markets indirectly and earned profit of nearly Rs. 19 crore. SEBI alleged that these parties carried out such trades by transferring funds to other parties to enable them to carry out trades and earn / make profits.
However, in dealings carried out during this prohibition period, SEBI had not alleged, nor even suspected that such persons had carried out any price manipulation or committed any other wrong act. Since the dealings were carried out despite of such prohibitions, SEBI passed an order impounding such profit and levying interest of Rs. 8.45 crore, viz., in all seeking payment of Rs. 27.44 crore. To give effect to such impounding, it asked such parties to deposit the amount in an escrow account with a lien in favor of SEBI. Till the amount was deposited, SEBI directed that they shall not alienate any of their assets. Their bank/demat accounts were frozen, in the sense that the banks/depositories were ordered not to allow debits except for purposes of creation of the escrow account. They were also directed to submit a list of their assets to SEBI presumably so that SEBI can keep track of their assets and perhaps freeze them too.
This order is an interim and ex-parte order pending completion of investigation after which SEBI may pass final orders for disgorgement of such profits. If the finding of such investigation is that the allegations are true, then the profits would be disgorged and interest will be charged i.e., effectively forfeiting the gain made through a third party.
The question thus to be examined is whether SEBI can in law can pass such orders forfeiting profits made through legitimate deals, albeit in violation of orders not to deal in securities.
Are prohibitory orders preventive or penal?
In this context, it would be relevant to examine whether prohibitory orders are preventive or penal. A person is found to have committed price manipulation in capital markets. He should obviously be punished. However, it may also be in the interest of market that such person be prevented from carrying out trades. Thus, the order prohibiting him from dealing may be prevention, though in practice it works as a penalty / punishment.
The distinction is important because a penal order requires specific powers. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court in SEBI vs. Ajay Agarwal ((2010) 3 SCC 765) albeit in the context of whether power to issue such directions given by an amendment can have a retrospective effect. If it was a penal power, then obviously SEBI could not have issued preventive directions. However, the Court held that it was not a penal power.
The relevance here is that if the parties were issued prohibitory directions not to trade as a preventive measure to avoid repetitive manipulation. That does not make the wrong of disobeying such directions right, but at least the spirit of the original direction was not seriously violated since there was no manipulation that the direction intended to prevent.
Can and should such profits be disgorged?
Having considered the above, the question is whether SEBI can order disgorgement in such a situation and whether it should order such disgorgement? In the first instance, the question is whether SEBI has powers in law to order such disgorgement. In the second instance, the question is whether it would be right to do so.
Can SEBI order such disgorgement?
As mentioned earlier, the power of SEBI to disgorge profits made in violation of the law was contentious. The SEBI Act, 1992, however, was amended in 2014 by way of adding an Explanation. This Explanation to section 11B of the SEBI Act clarifies that SEBI has power to order disgorgement of “wrongful gains” (or loss averted) made “by indulging in any transaction or activity in contravention of the provisions of this Act or regulations made thereunder”. Thus, it can be seen that the requirements for disgorging profits are as follows:-
a. There have to be wrongful gains.
b. Such gains should be by indulging in any transaction or activity.
c. Such transaction or activity should be in contravention of the provision of the Act or Regulations made thereunder.
Thus, there have to be specific provisions in the Act/ Regulations and the profits made should be arising out of transactions/activity in contravention of such provisions. For example, the SEBI Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulations prohibit dealing in shares by insiders while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information. If a person still carries out such insider trading, such trading would be in contravention of the Regulations. Such profits are thus liable for disgorgement.
However, what if, as in the present case, the profits are made in violation of the directions of SEBI and not directly in violation of the Act/Regulations? Can SEBI thus disgorge profits made in violation of its directions? On one hand, it is arguable that provisions granting powers to disgorge money should be interpreted strictly. Thus, if the law does not expressly provide for forfeiture of profits made in violation of directions, such forfeiture cannot be made. On other hand, the question may be whether the law could be purposively and broadly interpreted. Thus, if powers to give such directions are given under the Act, then violation can of such directions be treated as violation of the Act?
It is also noteworthy that SEBI does have power to levy penalty where any person does not comply with directions of SEBI. Section 15HB provides for a penalty of upto Rs. 1 crore on persons “fails to comply with any provision of this Act, the rules or the regulations made or directions issued by the Board”.
Should SEBI disgorge such profits?
Whether SEBI should disgorge such profits is an interesting question! Needless to clarify, this is not to say that what is right is necessarily legal. However, it is seen that a person who violates directions not to trade can suffer a penalty of a maximum amount of Rs. 1 crore. He can also be prosecuted. However, in the meantime, as is alleged in the present case, he could make a profit of several times the maximum penalty leviable. Thus, it is submitted that SEBI should have power to disgorge such profits or, alternatively, levy a penalty that is related to the profits made. Such power to levy penalty that is related to the profits already exists in cases where there is price manipulation, insider trading, etc.
Conclusion
One looks forward to the final order in this case. The issues, as explained earlier, are not just of law but also of power of SEBI to effectively prevent blatant disregard of its directions. Hopefully, if SEBI does order disgorgement, it will give detailed reasoning and legal basis for disgorgement.
