Double jeopardy

priyanka pai (Querist) 14 February 2017 This query is : Resolved
Sirs,

SEBI issued Show Cause Notice in year 2006 for the fraudulent dealing in shares by the offenders. Hearing took place before Adjudicating Officer(AO) and Whole time member (WTM) of SEBI who imposed penalty and order passed directing to pay disgorgement amount respectively.

Appeals were filed before the Securities Appellate Tribunal which upheld the above Orders of AO and WTM and directed to comply with the above orders of SEBI in 2008. Appeals were preferred against said orders of SAT before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which directed the offenders to comply with the Orders of SAT in 2013. The Offenders duly complied with the said order of Hon'ble SC of India.

However, now the SEBI has filed criminal complaint against the said Offenders for the same offence of fraudulent dealings in shares committed by them.

My query is does this situation amount to double jeopardy on the offenders as they have already faced litigation and also paid the penalty by duly complying with the order of the Hon'ble SC?

Please guide me on this.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Guest (Expert) 14 February 2017
You should mention whether the recent action taken by SEBI is on the Same grounds Or different Please

Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 15 February 2017
Author must give the clarification sought by Raj Kumar NJS.

priyanka pai (Querist) 15 February 2017
SEBI has filed the criminal case for the same offence on the same facts on the ground that the said criminal act been committed. However, penalties for the said offence has already been paid by the offenders by complying with the order of the Hon'ble SC of India.

Also, as posted in my second thread, does this amount to double jeopardy by SEBI?

Regards

Guest (Expert) 15 February 2017
Dear Ms. Priyanka Pai,

You have not made clear as to who were the offenders, the Company Directors, the broker, the sub-broker or some buyer, on whom DEBI took action at its own and further against whom that filed criminal case with what different grounds other than the SEBI's own case held by SAT.

I hope, being a lawyer, you can well be aware that such basic info is quite necessary for arriving at some conclusive opinion, as legal opinion depends mainly on the nature, characteristics, and the circumstances of the case.

However, the only thing you have the need to understand is the distinction between the executive action for misconduct of the member and involvement of judiciary for criminal offense. In fact, SEBI action at its own under the provisions of its own trading rules, as held by SAT, was an executive action for organizational misconduct on the part of its member, while the criminal case tended to fulfill the requirements of law pertaining to criminal offense at judiciary level, as the same was intended to breach of trust with the intention to cheat the stakeholders and the shareholders of the company or for the purpose of money laundering by the offender.

So, there cannot be double jeopardy in the case.

However, defense of the criminal case would depend solely on the merits of the case depending upon the facts of the case, which you have avoided to elucidate.

priyanka pai (Querist) 15 February 2017
Dhingra Sir,

There are no other substantive facts in the case other than mentioned in the earlier post.

However, I am grateful for the subtle explanation on double jeopardy.

Regards