<p>In connection with a probe into a sharp rise in price and trading volume of GHCL shares between November 6, 2006 and March 31, 2007, Sebi conducted a probe in the role of brokers and their clients who traded in the stock. “It was observed during investigation that certain entities had indulged in synchronisation of deals/reveral trading/fictitious trading in the shares of GHCL in a manner that led to creation of artificial volume and impacted the price of the scrip,” Sebi order said.<br /><br />India Infoline was charged with executing sybchronised transactions in GHCL shares for Jalco Financial Services (JFSPL) and Wilful Finance and Investment (WFIPL) and violating code of conduct of brokers. “JFSPL & WFIPL entered into several synchronised trades, out of which 36 were transacted through the noticee. The notice through these 36 synchronised transactions created a volume of 8,67,000 shares,” it was alleged. <br /><br />The probe, however, found India Infoline “had merely acted as an agent for its clients and carried out the orders on the screen based trading mechanism of the exchange.”</p>
<p>In connection with a probe into a sharp rise in price and trading volume of GHCL shares between November 6, 2006 and March 31, 2007, Sebi conducted a probe in the role of brokers and their clients who traded in the stock. “It was observed during investigation that certain entities had indulged in synchronisation of deals/reveral trading/fictitious trading in the shares of GHCL in a manner that led to creation of artificial volume and impacted the price of the scrip,” Sebi order said.<br /><br />India Infoline was charged with executing sybchronised transactions in GHCL shares for Jalco Financial Services (JFSPL) and Wilful Finance and Investment (WFIPL) and violating code of conduct of brokers. “JFSPL & WFIPL entered into several synchronised trades, out of which 36 were transacted through the noticee. The notice through these 36 synchronised transactions created a volume of 8,67,000 shares,” it was alleged. <br /><br />The probe, however, found India Infoline “had merely acted as an agent for its clients and carried out the orders on the screen based trading mechanism of the exchange.”</p>