By Jayant M. Thakur, Chartered Accountant
SEBI has
passed yet another order* holding
that being ‘friends’ on Facebook is ground enough to allege that the two
parties are connected and thus guilty for insider trading violations. Based on
this, SEBI has passed an interim order requiring such ‘connected person’ to
deposit the allegedly ill-gotten gains and also initiated proceedings for
debarment. About two years back, by an order dated 4th February
2016, SEBI had made a similar ruling that was discussed in this column.
However, in that case, the social media connection was not the sole connection.
Such orders raise several concerns since people are increasingly connected in
social media to friends, relatives and even strangers.
Summary
of some relevant provisions of law relating to insider trading
Insider
trading is believed to be rampant not just in India but also in other
countries. Proving that there was insider trading the guilty is a difficult
task. In India, it is also perceived that lack of adequate powers with SEBI to
determine “connections” between parties makes Regulators’ job a little more
difficult. Primarily, SEBI has to show that a person is connected with the
company or persons close to it. Further, it has to also show that unpublished
price sensitive information existed that was used to deal in shares and make
profit. In many cases, close insiders like executives, directors, etc. get
access to valuable price sensitive information and fall to temptation of easy
profits. Such cases are easier to investigate, compile sufficient and direct
evidence and punish the wrong doer.
However,
capital markets also attract sophisticated operators who use advanced tools and
techniques to avoid detection. Information can be increasingly shared in a
manner difficult to even detect, much less prove, more so with fast developing
technology, encryption, etc.
The SEBI
(Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 does use several deeming
provisions that help establish a basic case. Some of these presumptions can be
rebutted by showing facts to the contrary.
To determine
whether there was insider trading in such cases, certain facts/circumstances
would have to be established. Firstly, it would have to be shown that there was
price sensitive information relating to the company that was not yet made available
to the public. Then, it would have to be shown that the suspected person is
‘connected’ to the company or certain insiders. Several categories of persons
are deemed to be connected. Alternatively, if the suspect is an unconnected
person, then he should be shown to have received such information from the
company or a connected person or otherwise. Then it would have to be shown that
such person dealt in the securities of the company while such information was
not yet made public.
Proving
“connection”
As discussed
above, there are some categories of persons that are deemed to be connected.
Directors, employees, auditors, etc. are, for example, deemed to be
connected if their position enables them access to unpublished price sensitive
information (“UPSI”).
Then there
are persons who are in “frequent communication with its officers” which enables
them access to UPSI. And so on.
Proving
contractual connection of directors, auditors, etc. would be relatively
easy. Proving that their position enables them access to UPSI requires
compiling of relevant information such as their nature of duties, their
position in the company, the nature of information that was UPSI, etc.
This information can be compiled with the help of the company.
Difficulty
arises in proving connection of persons who are not so closely associated with
the company. It would have to be proved, for example, that he was in frequent
communication with the officers, etc. of the company. This may be
possible if SEBI is able to establish, for example, a pattern of communication
of such person with the officers, etc. Alternatively, it would have to
be shown that the person was in possession of such UPSI, which is often more
difficult, more considering that parties may use sophisticated
techniques/technology to communicate.
What
happened in the present case?
Before going
into the details of this case, it is emphasised that this is an interim order.
There are no final findings and the statements made therein are allegations,
though after a certain level of investigation and also inquiring and obtaining
information from the parties concerned.
SEBI found
that the Managing Director (“MD”) of the listed company in question had
acquired a significant quantity of shares of the company. These purchases were
made when certain price sensitive information existed but was not published. It
appears that SEBI also found that certain other persons had also dealt in the
shares of the company during this time and made significant profits.
The price
sensitive information concerned certain large contracts received by the
company. SEBI found that, during this period, the company had been awarded
large contracts of hiring of oil drilling rigs through a process of tender. The
process of tendering broadly involved certain stages. The first stage was
invitation of the bids and due submission of bids by the company. The second
stage was, in one case, revision of the bid to satisfy certain requirements. Thereafter,
the bids were opened and the top bidder (termed as L1) was declared. A formal
and final award of the order followed thereafter. SEBI held that declaration as
top bidder made it more or less certain that the contract would be awarded to
such person. Hence, SEBI decided that this was the time when price sensitive
information came into being. Till such information was formally published by
the company, the information remained UPSI and hence, insiders were barred from
dealing in the shares of the company.
It may be
added here that the contracts so awarded constituted a very significant portion
of the turnover of the company and hence, SEBI held that this information was
price sensitive. It also demonstrated that the price of the equity shares of
the company on stock exchanges increased when the information was made public.
The MD and
certain other persons were found to have purchased/dealt in the shares of the
company during this period.
Showing
that the MD was connected and dealt in the shares of the Company
SEBI held
that the MD was closely involved in the bidding process and indeed present at
the time when the bids were opened. The MD was thus held to be `an insider’.
It was then
shown that he had purchased shares of the company during this period and before
the information was made public. SEBI concluded that the MD had engaged in
insider trading.
Showing
that the other persons were connected and that they dealt in the shares of the
Company
SEBI found
that two other persons had dealt in the shares of the company during this same
period and made substantial profits. They had purchased shares of the company
before the UPSI was made public and sold the shares thereafter.
The
individual, Sujay Hamlai, was 50% owner of shares and director of a private
limited company, while his brother held the remaining 50% shares and was also
its director. Sujay and his company had dealt in the shares of the company.
When the MD
and these persons were asked whether they were connected to each other, their
reply, to paraphrase, was that they had no business connection but as
individuals they were socially acquainted.
SEBI checked
the Facebook profiles of such persons and found that the MD was ‘friends’ with
Sujay and his brother/spouse. Further, they had ‘liked’ each other’s photos
that were posted on this social media site. No other connection was found by
SEBI. However, SEBI held that this was sufficient for it to allege and hold for
the purposes of this order that they were connected and thus insiders.
Order
by SEBI
Having held
that the parties were insiders and that they had dealt in the shares of the
company while there was UPSI, it passed certain interim orders. It ordered them
to deposit in an escrow account the profits made with simple interest at 12%
per annum.
The interim
order also doubled up as a show cause notice, since, as mentioned earlier, the
findings of SEBI were meant to be allegations subject to reply/rebuttal by the
parties. Thus, the parties were asked to reply to these allegations and also
why adverse directions should not be passed against them. Such adverse
directions would be three. Firstly, the amount so deposited would be formally
disgorged/forfeited. Secondly, the parties may be debarred from accessing
capital market. Finally, the parties may be prohibited from dealing in
securities for a specified term.
Determination
of profits and total amount to be deposited
The
determination of profits is demonstrative of how working out of profits for
purposes of insider trading follows a particular method and hence worth a
review. SEBI first determined the purchase price of the shares by the parties.
In the MD’s
case, since he had not sold the shares. SEBI thus determined the closing price
of the equity shares immediately after the UPSI was made public. The
difference, the increase, was deemed to be the profit and the value of such
profit for the shares was held to be profits from insider trading.
Sujay and
his company had sold the shares some time after the UPSI was made public.
However, the method of determining profits from insider trading was the same as
for the MD. The difference between the closing price of the shares immediately
after the publishing of the UPSI and the purchase price was deemed to be the
profit from insider trading.
To such
profits, simple interest @ 12% per annum was added till the date of the Order.
Adjustment was also made for dividends received during this period.
The total
amount so arrived, being Rs. 175.58 lakhs for the MD, Rs. 18.20 lakhs for Sujay
and Rs. 47.86 lakhs for Sujay’s company, was ordered to be deposited in escrow
account pending final disposal of the proceedings. The parties were also
ordered not to alienate any of their assets till the amount was deposited.
Conclusion
It is seen
that in this case, the sole basis of alleging ‘connection’ between the MD and
Sujay/his company was their ‘connection’ on social media website Facebook.
There were of course other suspicious circumstances of timing of purchases by
Sujay, other factors listed in the order such as insignificant trades in other
shares, very recent opening of broker/demat account, etc. But the social
media connection seems to be the deciding factor.
Whatever may
be the final outcome in this particular case – whether in the final order of
SEBI after due reply by the parties and/or in appeal – some concerns come to
mind. SEBI uses social media activities and connections of parties to compile
information that it may be useful for its investigations in insider trading. It
is obvious that SEBI may do this also for other investigations where
connections are relevant such as price manipulations, frauds, takeovers, etc.
Even other authorities – regulators, police, etc. – would access social
media profiles of persons.
However, it is also common knowledge that more and
more people are on social media. There are also several other social media
websites apart from Facebook – viz., Twitter, Instagram, Linkedin, etc.
Connections are made not necessarily with persons whom one may know but even
with persons who are totally strangers. One may thus have thousands of
‘connections’. Making a connection is often a mere clicking on the ‘following’
button or ‘send’ or ‘confirm’ friend request and the like. The objective may be
to interact with such persons for online discussions or even to plainly
‘follow’ for knowing their views. It is possible that persons may end up facing
investigation purely on account of the activities of persons whom one may be
having such thin connections. While orders like these may be taken as a lesson
of caution for all of us as to whom we get ‘connected’ with, considering the
reality of social media, it is submitted that SEBI and other
regulators/authorities should come out with reasonable guidelines as to how
such ‘connections’ are treated and what presumptions are drawn.
