Gautam Adani's nephew gets relief from SEBI, accused of insider trading
SEBI stated that the assumptions made in the show-cause notice were inconsistent with the evidence. This concludes an investigation that lasted nearly three years. SEBI has charged Pranav Adani and others with insider trading. Let us explain what the entire matter is.
The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on Friday cleared Pranav Adani, director of several Adani Group companies and nephew of industrialist Gautam Adani, of charges of sharing price-sensitive information and violating insider trading rules.
SEBI also cleared two other relatives of the accused. The case focused on whether Pranav Adani shared confidential and price-sensitive details related to Adani Green Energy's acquisition of SB Energy before they were made public. Let us explain the entire matter.
There were allegations of insider trading
To investigate this matter, SEBI examined trades in Adani Green Energy shares between January 28, 2021, and August 20, 2021. Upon reviewing the investigation report in November 2023, SEBI determined that insider trading rules may have been violated and issued show-cause notices to three individuals:
Pranav Adani, Kunal Dhanpalbhai Shah, and Nirupal Dhanpalbhai Shah. Pranav Adani was accused of sharing unpublished price-sensitive information, while the Shah brothers were accused of using this information to profit illegally. These allegations were recorded in the show-cause notice issued in November 2023.
50-page order
However, after a detailed investigation, SEBI found no evidence that Pranav Adani shared any confidential information or that the Shah brothers traded based on insider information.
In its 50-page order, SEBI stated that the May 16, 2021, call was not intended to involve Pranav sharing any confidential information.
Kunal and Nirupal's transactions were genuine and not influenced by any confidential information related to the company or its securities.
The regulator concluded that the allegations were not substantiated and that since the transactions were genuine, no penalty or direction was warranted.