Sat asks Sebi to explain why Jane Street’s documents remembered

Mumbai: The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) instructed the regulator of the capital markets on Tuesday to submit an answer for the reasons for not disclosing certain documents to the American Handelsbureau Jane Street within three weeks. The Tribunal heard Jane Street’s plea against the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and said that the regulator stopped documents on which it had familiar to keep the company guilty of manipulating the local derivatives market.

During his hearing on Tuesday, Sat also dedicated the market watchdog not to continue with personal hearings in the Jane Street case until the case is completed. The next hearing is planned for November 18.

Sebi will not be able to withstand ‘confirming’ order on Jane Street without personal hearings – originally set before September 15 – because this process is essential before such an order is issued. The supervisor had adopted an ex-parte interim order against Jane Street.

After submitting Sebi of his response within three weeks, Jane Street must submit his duplicate within the following three weeks. The legal representative of Sebi, Gaurav Joshi, argued that they would not reveal documents that were not familiar for the interim order of 3 July. The investigation into Jane Street is at a critical moment and the scope of the investigation will increase, Joshi said during the hearing. Sebi’s interim order of 3 July imposed a trade ban and a fine of £ 4,844 crore on Jane Street for alleged manipulation of the local derivatives market. The high -frequency trader based in New York later transferred the entire amount.

“If they want the order to be abandoned from July 3, they have to come and show why they want it to be left,” said Joshi. “We have given all the documents; they must now explain their trade strategy. Instead of explaining their behavior, they are a fish investigation.”

The legal adviser of Jane Street, Darius Khambata, argued that Sebi has a legal obligation to make relevant documents known to guarantee a fair trial, referring to the past of the Supreme Court. In his petition, Jane Street said that Sebi had initially acquitted the company of any violations, but then had charged it after a complaint from a hedge fund manager established in the VAE. According to Jane Street, Sebi had investigated the same transactions on both occasions. “Your own internal surveillance department, in an extensive investigation, has given a vent-clean clean chit. In 20 days you will run on the basis of a complaint by a fund manager-based fund manager,” said Khambata. “Dishes to see that,” the counsel argued. He said that Jane Street did not trade, even after Sebi had lifted the ban after the company had deposited the entire fine.