Market regulator Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has imposed a penalty of Rs30 lakh on 18 connected entities, including members of the Vora family and Marfatia Stock Broking Pvt Ltd, for indulging in fraudulent and unfair trading practices in the scrip of SecUR Credentials Ltd (SCL) during its initial public offering (IPO) period. The regulator found that these entities colluded to create artificial market volumes and provided an unfair exit route to the promoters of the company.
The penalised entities are: Pankaj Rameshchandra Vyas (noticee 1), Vaishali Pankaj Vyas (noticee 2), Prafulchandra Chimanlal Vora (noticee 3), Pranav Prafulchandra Vora (noticee 4), Bhavik Prafulchandra Vora (noticee 5), Vishwa Pranavkumar Vora (noticee 6), Jinalben Bhavikbhai Vora (noticee 7), Jyotsanaben Prafulbhai Vora (noticee 8), and Vilpaben Pranavbhai Vora (noticee 9).
The list further includes: Deshna Traders LLP (noticee 10), Vilpa Enterprise LLP (noticee 11), Bhavik P Vora HUF (noticee 12), Pranav P Vora HUF (noticee 13), Prafulchandra Chimanlal Vora Hindu undivided family (HUF) (noticee 14), Anustup Trading Pvt Ltd (noticee 15), Olga Trading Pvt Ltd (noticee 16), Niraj Harsukhlal Sanghavi (noticee 17), and Marfatia Stock Broking Pvt Ltd (noticee 18).
SEBI’s investigation, covering the period between 21 February 2022 and 27 April 2022, revealed that these noticees violated provisions of the SEBI Act, the Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices (PFUTP) Regulations, the Stock Brokers Regulations, and applicable SEBI circulars. The inquiry established that Pankaj Vyas, Vaishali Vyas, promoters of SCL, offloaded shares during the IPO, while noticees 3 to 17, primarily from the Vora family, acted as counter-parties, creating the illusion of genuine demand.
Evidence showed that most of these entities were closely interconnected. Vilpaben Vora, who was both the spouse of Pranav Vora and an authorised person (AP) of Marfatia Stock Broking, played a pivotal role by introducing accounts for noticees 1–16 and placing trades on their behalf. Pranav Vora controlled the operations of several demat accounts belonging to family members, further cementing the links. Financial dealings and shared directorships tied Anustup Trading and Olga Trading to the Vora family, while Niraj Sanghavi's firm, Kenilworth Consultancy, was connected through fund transfers and communication during the IPO.
SEBI's investigation revealed that during the IPO, noticees 1–17 accounted for nearly half of the total market volume in SCL. Promoters Pankaj and Vaishali Vyas sold over 21.70 lakh shares, of which about 73% were purchased by noticees 3 to 17. Together, they executed 34 synchronised trades, contributing 17% of total market volume. This led to a 27-fold surge in trading volume compared to pre-IPO levels, misleading investors about liquidity in the stock.
Marfatia Stock Broking, which facilitated these trades, was found guilty of failing to maintain crucial records such as call logs and time-stamped order slips. Its managing director (MD) was also a partner in an entity jointly run with Pranav Vora and Vilpaben Vora, underlining the brokerage’s awareness of the scheme. SEBI noted that the broker’s weak due diligence enabled repeated suspicious trades through the same terminal.
The noticees argued that the trades matched naturally due to SCL’s illiquid nature and denied having prior arrangements. However, SEBI dismissed these defences, pointing out that most trades were routed through a single AP terminal under the control of Pranav Vora, making the coordination evident.
By orchestrating trades that gave promoters an exit during the IPO, the noticees abused the stock exchange platform instead of resorting to transparent off-market transactions. Their actions created a false market, harming investor confidence.
Concluding its adjudication, SEBI held that noticees 1–17 violated the SEBI Act and PFUTP Regulations, while noticee 18 breached the Stock Brokers Regulations and SEBI circulars, and imposed a consolidated penalty of Rs30 lakh on them. Details of the penalties levied is summarised in the table below.
