SEBI Clears Adani Group Executives in Insider Trading Probe Linked to SB Energy Deal
EBI has cleared Adani Group executives in an insider trading investigation related to the SB Energy acquisition, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish trading while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information, in line with settled principles under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015.
New Delhi: The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has cleared senior executives of the Adani Group in an insider trading investigation linked to the acquisition of SB Energy India, concluding that there was no sufficient evidence of violation of insider trading norms.
The investigation examined whether the executives had traded in securities while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information (UPSI) connected to the SB Energy acquisition.
Background of the Investigation
The probe was initiated to assess whether any Adani Group executives had misused confidential information prior to public disclosure of the SB Energy deal. SEBI examined trading data, timelines, access to information, and internal communication records to determine the existence of any unlawful trading activity.
SEBI’s Findings
After a detailed examination, SEBI concluded that:
- There was no conclusive evidence establishing that the executives were in possession of UPSI at the time of the trades;
- The trades could not be directly linked to the SB Energy acquisition;
- Mere access to information, without proof of misuse, does not amount to insider trading.
On this basis, SEBI dropped the proceedings against the concerned executives.
Relevant Statutory Framework
The investigation was conducted under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, particularly:
- Regulation 3 – Prohibition on communication or procurement of UPSI;
- Regulation 4 – Prohibition on trading while in possession of UPSI.
Relevant Case Law
- SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 – The Supreme Court held that insider trading violations must be established through cogent evidence and surrounding circumstances, not mere suspicion.
- Rakesh Agrawal v. SEBI (2004) SAT 56 – The Securities Appellate Tribunal clarified that possession of UPSI alone is insufficient; there must be proof of its use for trading.
- Chandrakala v. SEBI (2019) SAT – The Tribunal reiterated that a clear nexus between UPSI and trading activity is essential to sustain insider trading charges.
Legal Significance
The closure of the proceedings highlights the high evidentiary threshold required to establish insider trading under Indian securities law. It also reinforces that regulatory enforcement must be evidence-driven and aligned with settled judicial principles.
The decision underscores the importance of robust compliance systems, proper information controls, and adherence to disclosure norms by listed companies and corporate executives.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.