Insider trading India: SEBI’s latest cases

Why insider trading is trending again

Insider trading enforcement is back in focus after a cluster of SEBI orders, interim actions, and fresh allegations referenced widely on social media and Reddit. Recent discussions highlight how cases are no longer limited to classic company insiders, but can involve advisors, relatives, and even information originating outside a listed company. One widely shared data point is SEBI’s enforcement pace: it initiated 287 insider trading investigations in 2024-25 and passed final orders in 15 cases. For 2025-26, coverage cited 12 insider trading orders between 1 April and 15 October. Users are also debating the breadth of “unpublished price-sensitive information” (UPSI), especially after an unusual case linked to a regulator’s decision that impacted an entire industry. Another theme is procedure: interim orders can impound alleged gains quickly, while other matters close through settlements or end with restrictions being vacated. A separate strand of conversation focuses on transparency, after a court ruled SEBI’s internal insider trading probes are exempt from disclosure under RTI. Below is a snapshot of the specific matters being discussed.

Yes Bank 2022 deal: auditors, PE execs named

A Reuters-reviewed regulatory notice has been heavily cited online because it names professional-services executives alongside market participants. The notice said SEBI charged current and former leaders at the domestic branches of PwC and EY with violating insider trading regulations connected to a 2022 Yes Bank share sale and offering. According to the notice, SEBI also accused executives from U.S. private equity firms Carlyle Group and Advent International of disseminating unpublished price-sensitive information about the transaction. It further alleged that two executives from PwC and EY, along with five relatives and associates, profited unlawfully by trading Yes Bank shares ahead of the 2022 offering. The same notice described exchanges of sensitive details among executives from Carlyle, Advent, PwC, and EY, enabling trading based on that information. A former member of Yes Bank’s board was also accused of leaking sensitive information that facilitated trading. Separately, a recent incident cited in the discussion said SEBI accused Bank of America’s Indian division of violating insider trading regulations during a fundraising event. The notice was described as identifying 19 individuals in total, with seven alleged to have traded on privileged information and four alleged to have shared it, and it specifically named eight PwC and EY executives for inadequate compliance practices.

IEX case: CERC-linked UPSI and Rs 173.14 cr deposit

The IEX matter went viral because the alleged UPSI was tied to a regulatory development rather than a company’s internal event. As shared in posts, SEBI issued an interim order against eight individuals for insider trading in the scrip of Indian Energy Exchange Ltd, and directed that Rs 173.14 crore be deposited. The trading was described as based on information about the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) market coupling order dated July 23, 2025. Commentary circulating online said SEBI alleged the individuals had access to inside information about CERC’s internal meetings leading up to the order. The order allegedly led the individuals to purchase put options of IEX through family and friends’ accounts a few days before the announcement. The day after the order became public, the IEX scrip was said to have crashed by 29.58%, which was cited as the price move that generated the alleged profits. Some posts framed SEBI’s approach as a broad interpretation of UPSI because the information originated from another regulator and impacted the industry. Legal and market commentators, including a widely shared view attributed to Viral Mehta, argued that the action stretches insider trading concepts to “regulatory UPSI,” potentially expanding liability for industry participants and advisors.

IndusInd Bank: alleged sales ahead of disclosure

IndusInd Bank is another case that drew attention because it involves senior leadership and a long disclosure timeline discussed in the order excerpts being shared. SEBI issued an interim order against five senior executives including former CEO Sumant Kathpalia, accusing them of selling shares while in possession of UPSI. The UPSI was described as information related to discrepancies in the bank’s derivative portfolio account balances. SEBI’s findings referenced that key executives were aware of the discrepancy by November 2023, while public disclosure happened in March 2025, which was described as a 15-month delay. In the coverage being circulated, the accounting discrepancy figure was cited as Rs 1,529 crore, and separate posts described it as Rs 1,572 crore. SEBI impounded Rs 19.78 crore collectively from the five individuals, described as gains avoided by selling before the price impact following disclosure. Names mentioned alongside the former CEO included Arun Kurana, Susan Sorov, Roan Jatana, and Anil Marco Rao, as per the shared summaries of the interim order. Another detail frequently repeated is that SEBI’s investigation found the five executives sold a total of 4.79 lakh shares between December 2023 and March 2025, and none of them purchased shares during this period, which SEBI interpreted as a calculated offload. Separately, discussion also referenced that the regulator is investigating six IndusInd Bank officials for allegedly selling stock options while aware of undisclosed discrepancies.

TV tip pre-positioning: Zee Business case

The Zee Business-related case is being discussed as a reminder that insider-style conduct is not always tied to corporate boardrooms. In a 55-page final order referenced in posts, SEBI barred four entities from the securities market for two years and imposed penalties totaling INR 4 crore. The entities named were Partha Sarathi Dhar, SAAR Commodities Pvt Ltd, Manan Sharecom Pvt Ltd, and Kanhya Trading Company. SEBI’s order said they executed trades based on advance stock tips aired on the channel, by taking positions ahead of televised recommendations from guest experts. The debarment period was stated to be effective from February 8, 2024, which was the date of an earlier interim order. The fines cited were INR 2 crore on SAAR Commodities, INR 75 lakh each on Manan Sharecom and Kanhya Trading Company, and INR 50 lakh on Partha Sarathi Dhar. The investigation narrative described these trades as “pre-positioning” designed to benefit from expected price surges after the recommendations went public, giving an unfair advantage over public investors. Unlawful gains of INR 7.41 crore were cited, and the same discussions noted those gains have been disgorged as part of settlement proceedings. The order also noted that one guest expert, Himanshu Gupta, faced no further action because investigators could not establish direct involvement.

Settlements, closures, and reversals: how cases end

Alongside high-profile interim orders, social media chatter also highlights how insider trading matters sometimes conclude through settlements. One example cited is an individual who settled an alleged violation after paying Rs 39 lakh towards settlement charges. Another settlement mentioned involved two individuals, including a former employee of Deloitte India, who paid Rs 74 lakh as a settlement fee, with SEBI noting the applicants sought settlement without admitting or denying findings. There were also references to three individuals settling an alleged violation in the scrip of PNB Housing Finance Ltd by paying Rs 1.56 crore collectively. Separate posts referenced a SEBI investigation into trading in HDFC Ltd and HDFC Bank Ltd scrips around the amalgamation and merger information, framed as an example of how SEBI examines suspected trading around large corporate events. In contrast to settlements, some discussions pointed to matters where restrictions were lifted after process milestones. One widely shared update said SEBI lifted restrictions imposed on 16 entities, including some former employees of Infosys, and vacated prohibitions on six entities with immediate effect, bringing that matter to an end. Another strand referenced final orders issued in companies such as Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, cited as examples of how enforcement can culminate. This mix of interim action, settlements, and vacating of restrictions is a key reason insider trading remains a recurring topic for retail investors trying to interpret enforcement signals.

Rulebook focus: UPSI, Rule 4, and compliance gaps

Much of the online discussion circles back to how SEBI frames “possession” and “communication” of UPSI under the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015. Posts quoting the regulations highlighted Regulation 4, which prohibits an insider from trading in listed securities while in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information, subject to specified exceptions. The IEX matter is being used by commentators to test the practical boundaries of UPSI, because the alleged information related to a CERC decision rather than IEX’s internal corporate data. The Yes Bank-linked notice is being cited as an example of alleged UPSI moving through professional services networks, private equity executives, and relatives or associates. It also explicitly raised the issue of compliance systems, as the notice described eight executives from PwC and EY being named for inadequate compliance practices. The IndusInd matter is being discussed as a classic UPSI scenario, where senior executives were alleged to have traded while aware of undisclosed discrepancies. Users also highlight that SEBI actions can target both traders and communicators, and the Yes Bank notice summarized this by stating that seven individuals traded and four shared privileged information. Another angle is that insider trading enforcement can intersect with market integrity narratives beyond UPSI, such as “pre-positioning” ahead of media recommendations, which SEBI treated as creating an unfair informational advantage. Taken together, these cases show why compliance discussions now include not just company insiders, but advisors, relatives, and information channels that sit adjacent to formal corporate disclosures.

Regulatory pipeline and what to watch next

Several policy and process updates are also driving interest because they suggest further tightening of the regime. A SEBI-formed committee has proposed classifying the SEBI chairman and whole-time members as “insiders” under insider trading rules, with the stated aim of preventing trading on price-sensitive information and aligning with global regulatory practices. Separately, SEBI proposed extending automated closure of trading windows ahead of financial results to the immediate relatives of designated persons of listed companies. Online conversation links these proposals to broader conflict-of-interest concerns and the desire for clearer boundaries on who can trade and when. Another recent development referenced is the Delhi High Court ruling that SEBI’s insider trading inquiries are exempt from RTI disclosure, after the court dismissed a petition seeking information on SEBI’s investigation into alleged insider trading related to WABCO India. That ruling is being discussed as a trade-off between investigative confidentiality and public transparency, especially in high-interest cases. Enforcement against high-profile individuals also remains a watch point, with social posts referencing SEBI’s demand notice to absconding diamantaire Mehul Choksi for Rs 2.1 crore related to insider trading in Gitanjali Gems, alongside a warning of attachment if unpaid within 15 days. Another Reuters-linked item being shared said SEBI alleged Pranav Adani, a director of several Adani group companies, shared price-sensitive information and breached insider trading rules, and that he sought to settle. With multiple interim orders, final orders, settlements, and policy proposals moving in parallel, the key takeaway from the current trend is that SEBI appears willing to pursue both traditional UPSI cases and novel fact patterns that test the perimeter of insider trading rules.