Determining the Standard of Proof for Fraud under Indian Securities Law

Open Access

Year : 2023 | Volume : | : | Page : –
By

Deepanshu Agarwa

  1. Student University of Petroleum and Energy Studies Uttarakhand India

Abstract

Fraud is considered as one of the serious charges in the securities industry. If proved, the consequences involve a complete shutdown in the business and distrust among the various market participants involved, which is not only adversarial for them but for the whole market. In addition, a little media attention is enough to embarrass the entity against whom the fraud has been alleged. Therefore, it is not reasonable to impose such serious allegations on the basis of ordinary standard of proof used in other civil cases. In this light, this article examines the current standard of proof for securities law fraud in India and analyzes it to bring it in line with the current established practices.

Keywords: Fraud, securities industries, securities law, standard of proof, business

How to cite this article: Deepanshu Agarwa. Determining the Standard of Proof for Fraud under Indian Securities Law. Journal of Capital Market and Securities Law. 2023; ():-.
How to cite this URL: Deepanshu Agarwa. Determining the Standard of Proof for Fraud under Indian Securities Law. Journal of Capital Market and Securities Law. 2023; ():-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jcmsl/article=2023/view=90848

Full Text PDF Download

References

1. SEBI v. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017) 15 SCC 1 (‘Kanaiyalal’).
2. Mohamed Bechir Chenguel, ‘Financial Fraud and Managers, Causes and Effects’ (Intechopen, 24 November 2020) accessed 20 June 2021.
3. ‘Chapter -1 Introduction to Indian Financial Markets & Securities Market Segments’ (Tradebulls) accessed 20 June 2021.
4. Vinay Babbar, ‘Unfair Trade Practices and Insider Trading’ (Rajdhani College) accessed 20 June 2021.
5. R.S. Agarwal v. SEBI 2019 SCC OnLine SAT 5.
6. SEBI Act 1992, s11(1).
7. SEBI v. Skdc Consultants Ltd. (2004) 2 CompLJ 387 Bom.
8. ibid.
9. ibid.
10. SEBI v. Cabot International Capital 2005 123 CompCas 841 Bom.
11. Skdc (n 7)
12. Pyramid Saimira Theatre Ltd. v. SEBI 2010 SCC OnLine SAT 146.
13. ibid.
14. ibid.
15. Kanaiyalal (n 1).
16. SEBI Act 1992, s 32. It reads; “The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”.
17. Suraj Surjit Chaudhary, Higher Judiciary on SEBI Act and Allied Laws (1st edn, Bloomsbury Professional India 2021).
18. Dr. Rangin Pallav Tripathy, ‘Standard of Proof in Inquiry Against Judges: A Case for a Lower Threshold’ (2018) 5(2) NLUJ Law Review 85.
19. Miller v Minister of Pensions 1947 2 All ER 372.
20. Shyamkrishna Balganesh and K. Vivek Reddy, ‘The Standard Of Proof Required In Divorce Proceedings: An Unresolved Controversy’ (2002) 44(3) JILI 413.
21. Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534.
22. Miller (n 19)
23. ibid.
24. ibid.
25. M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das & Ors (2020) 1 SCC 1.
26. Arta Bilali Zendel, ‘Conceptual Definition Of The Burden Of Proof And Other Related Terms’ (UKIM) accessed 19 May 2021.
27. Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. v The State AIR 1970 All 51.
28. Miller (n 19).
29. Dastane (n 21).
30. Balganesh & Reddy (n 20).
31. Armaan Patkar & Diya Uday, ‘Standard of Proof: Civil Securities Fraud, Market Manipulation and Insider Trading in India’ (2018) 8 SCC J-25.
32. ibid.
33. [1951] P 35.
34. David Goetz, ‘let’s be clear about “clear and convincing”’ (MPCC-CPPM) accessed 06 May 2021.
35. ibid.
36. [1957] 1 QB 247.
37. [1964] 1 WLR 451.
38. Goetz (n 34).
39. 2009 1 AC 11.
40. [2009] 1 AC 11.
41. [2009] UKSC 17
42. [2012] EWHC 1929 (Ch) at [133].
43. [2010] EWHC 358 (Ch) at [3].
44. [2012] EWHC 1980 (Ch) at [51].
45. [2010] EWHC 3199.
46. [2020] EWCA Civ 408
47. ShAmini K Ragavan, ‘An intermediate standard of proof in serious civil cases in England and Wales’ (2014) 65(1) NILQ 81.
48. ibid.
49. Mimnagh, Louise M., “”Probate Actions and ‘Suspicious Circumstances’: A Third Standard of Proof for Allegations Involving Moral Guilt”” (2014) 19 Appeal 95 accessed 22 June, 2021.
50. Ennis McBride, “Is the civil ‘higher standard of proof’ a coherent concept?” (2009) 8 Law, Probability and Risk 323 accessed 01 June, 2021.
51. Mimnagh (n 49).
52. Zendel (n 26).
53. 441 U.S. 418 (1979)
54. 146 F.2d 447, 452 (8th Cir. 1945)
55. 1943 SCC OnLine US SC 139.
56. 834 F.2d 1297 (1987)
57. 562 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
58. 604 F.2d 676 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
59. State v. Addington 588 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.1979)
60. United States v Fatico 458 F Supp 388 (EDNY) (1978)
61. Ragavan (n 47).
62. ibid.
63. (2016) 6 SCC 368.
64. See, Chintalapati Srinivasa Raju v. SEBI (2018) 7 SCC 443; Shri Anandkumar Baldevbhai Patel v. SEBI 2019 SCC OnLine SAT 186; SEBI v. Bhavesh Pabari, (2019) 5 SCC 90; SEBI v. Raki Trading (P) Ltd. (2018) 13 SCC 753; Gagan Rastogi vs Sebi 2019 SCC OnLine SAT 79; Piramal Enterprises Limited v. Sebi 2019 SCC OnLine SAT 134; Indivar Traders Private Limited v. SEBI 2020 SCC OnLine SAT 458.
65. 2019 SCC OnLine SAT 5.
66. 2013 SCC OnLine SAT 24.
67. 2019 SCC OnLine SAT 148.
68. 2013 SCC OnLine SAT 101.
69. 1935 SCC OnLine All 257.
70. 2015 SCC OnLine SAT 54.
71. 2010 SCC OnLine SAT 285.
72. 2001 SCC OnLine SAT 42.
73. 2019 SCC OnLine SAT 165.
74. 2019 SCC OnLine SAT 335.
75. 2011 SCC OnLine SAT 106.
76. 2009 SCC OnLine SAT 176.
77. 2012 SCC OnLine SAT 203.
78. (1991) 2 SCC 716.
79. Ragavan (n 47).
80. ibid.
81. ibid.
82. 2005 SCC OnLine SAT 116.
83. (2012) 5 SCC 443.
84. Sheree S. Ung, ‘Standard of Proof in SEC Actions for Injunctive Relief in Securities Fraud Cases: S.E.C. v. First Financial Group Texas’, 23 B.C.L. Rev. 1529 (1982) accessed 02 June, 2021.
85. ibid.
86. ibid.
87. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Intermediaries) Regulations, 2008, reg.23.
88. International Public Sector Fraud Forum, ‘Guide to Understanding the Total Impact of Fraud’, accessed 11 July 2021.
89. Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, s. 11(4)(c).
90. Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, s. 11(4)(b).
91. Gordon K. Eng, ‘The Burden of Proof in SEC Disciplinary Proceedings: Preponderance and Beyond’, (1981) 49(4) Fordham L. Review accessed 10 July 2021.
92. 2002 SCC OnLine SAT 15.
93. Kanaiyalal (n 1).
94. Gordon (n 91).
95. ibid.
96. McNeill v. Butz, 480 F.2d 314, 319 (4th Cir. 1973) (quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972)).
97. Gordon (n 91).
98. ibid.
99. Robinson B. Lacy, ‘Adverse Publicity and SEC Enforcement Procedure’, (1977) 46(3) Fordham L. Rev. accessed 22 April 2021.
100. Amit Tandon, Proxy firms in India punch much above their weight, PRIME DATABASE, https://www.primedatabase.com/article/2015/20.Article-Amit%20Tandon.pdf (last visited Oct.21, 2020). 101. 1976 AIR 712 102. 1994 AIR 626
103. (1913) ILR 40 Cal 898
104. MANU/GJ/1385/2018
105. Rajat Sethi, Misha Chandna, and Aditi Agarwal, ‘Insider Trading: Circumstantial Evidence Is Evidence Enough?’ (2020) 32 NLSI Rev. 205.
106. ibid.
107. Sheree (n 84).
108. Rajat Sethi (n 105).
109. Eshvar girish and Rupa Veena S., ‘Insider trading during Covid-19: A cause for action by SEBI?’ (2020) 122 taxmann.com 191 (Article).
110. ibid.
111. ‘Report of Committee on Fair Market Conduct for public comments’ accessed 2 May 2021.
112. Gordon (n 91).

Open Access Article
Volume
Received October 6, 2021
Accepted November 22, 2021
Published January 22, 2023
Views: 1,539