Mumbai: The market regulator has barred former IIFL Securities director Sanjiv Bhasin and 11 others from securities trading for allegedly engaging in coordinated fraudulent trading by placing orders ahead of offering stock recommendations on television and social media.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) also directed impounding of ₹11.37 crore from the 12 noticees—representing alleged unlawful gains from the scheme—according to the regulator’s ex-parte interim order issued on Tuesday.

Bhasin was associated with IIFL as a director between April 2017 and November 2022 and later as a consultant until June 2024. During this period, he offered stock recommendations that were disseminated to clients via IIFL’s Telegram channel and trading platforms.

Read more: Sebi’s new fee platform aims to protect investors. But not many have taken to it

Sebi alleged that Bhasin placed buy orders through trading accounts of related entities—including Venus Portfolios, Gemini Portfolios, and HB Stockholdings—shortly before recommending the same stocks on business channels such as CNBC Awaaz, Zee Business, ET Now, and IIFL’s Telegram channel.

“Once prices of securities increased after his recommendations, Sanjiv Bhasin used to sell the securities, thereby making a profit,” said Sebi whole-time member Kamlesh Varshney in the 149-page order. “Accordingly, he manipulated the price of securities and made ill-gotten gains.”

The findings are based on a probe covering January 2020 to June 2024.

According to Sebi, the trades were routed through RRB Master Securities, a brokerage firm managed by Bhasin’s cousin Lalit Bhasin and his brother-in-law Ashish Kapur. 

The order states that Bhasin regularly coordinated with RRB dealers before making his recommendations.

In one instance, on 11 January 2022, he recommended shares of L&T Technology Services live on Zee Business. Sebi observed that “he had already accumulated 3,800 shares via futures contracts earlier in the day at ₹5,641.8 per share,” and squared off the position immediately after the broadcast at ₹5,677.79, booking a profit of ₹1.36 lakh.

Modus operandi 

Sebi’s investigation included phone call transcripts showing Bhasin giving precise instructions to dealers on price and quantity, often minutes before his public appearances. 

“He used to recommend majorly ‘buy’ recommendations in certain scrips on TV Channels, which included those scrips in which he had already taken huge buy positions. Thereafter, contrary to his own buy recommendations given to the viewers en masse, he would give instructions to carry out opposite trades (sell),” the order stated.

On 7 February 2024, Bhasin issued a “special stock pick” for Parag Milk Foods at ₹210–220 with a 31-day target of ₹300. Sebi found he had already acquired 51,500 shares through HB Stockholdings and sold them on the same day at ₹235.45, realising a profit of ₹8.4 lakh.

The regulator cited WhatsApp messages in which Bhasin sought trade confirmations and directed that profits be recorded. 

Sebi also highlighted that while IIFL Securities is a registered research analyst and investment adviser, Bhasin was not individually registered in either capacity. 

Pending final directions, Sebi has restrained all 12 noticees from buying, selling, or dealing in securities, either directly or indirectly. They have been given 21 days to respond and request a personal hearing.

Read more: Sebi’s stricter ESG debt rules may deter mid-sized firms

“Investors would have invested their hard-earned money on his recommendation… only to be deceived by such manipulative advice wherein the advisor himself is squaring off all his positions to make huge gains at the cost of their investments,” the order said.

IIFL Securities, in a statement, said Bhasin was associated with the firm as a contractual consultant. “His term was to end on June 30, 2024. However, due to health reasons, Bhasin’s contract has been discontinued prematurely with effect from June 17, 2024,” a spokesperson said, adding that “he was not a member of the Board of Directors of IIFL Securities Limited or any other group company or affiliates.”

The firm said it was not aware of the full details of the Sebi order and was unable to comment.

The order can be appealed before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT). Legal experts suggested that Bhasin’s legal team may challenge Sebi’s findings by disputing the causal link between his recommendations and the trades, or by denying control over the relevant accounts.

“They may argue his television appearances were general market commentary rather than formal advice under Sebi’s Research Analyst Regulations. They may also cite an organisational separation between his role and the trading activity”, said Nirali Mehta, partner at Mindspright Legal.

However, given the volume of evidence cited by Sebi, such arguments—similar to those rejected in the Hemant Ghai case—may be difficult to sustain, Mehta said.

Broader scrutiny 

Lawyers specialising in securities regulation emphasized that the case signalled a broader shift in enforcement priorities. “The SEBI interim order in the Sanjiv Bhasin matter gives a clear message: media visibility, when misused, can constitute market abuse,” she said. “Sebi is now signalling that public-facing experts will be held to the same standard as insiders and regulated entities.”

Mehta noted that under the Research Analyst Regulations, “even recommendations on WhatsApp and Telegram are treated as public appearances subject to registration, disclosures, and trading restrictions.”

Read more: Sebi engages with venture capital funds directly to smoothen transition to AIF

She said experts may shift toward broader analysis, educational content, or more prominent disclaimers. “While this curbs manipulative advice, it could also narrow the range and speed of commentary. Still, the real focus is not on silencing opinion but on penalising those who misuse their influence for personal gain.”

While no action has been taken against the television channels that featured Bhasin, Mehta said, “the regulatory direction suggests rising expectations around platform accountability”. 

She added that media outlets may be required to ensure that featured experts explicitly disclose any conflicts of interest, with improved supervision and record-keeping becoming essential.