Confirmatory Order in respect of Mrs. Reena Bansal

In respect of Mrs. Reena Bansal (PAN: AHRPB9035G) 1. SEBI vide an ad interim ex-parte order dated April 21, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'interim order') restrained Mrs. Reena Bansal {wife of Mr. Rajeev Bansal, a sub-broker affiliated to M/s. ICICI Securities Limited (I-Sec)} from buying, selling and dealing in the securities market in any manner whatsoever, and prohibited her from accessing the securities market, directly or indirectly, either for herself or for her clients. In addition to above, the depositories, NSDL and CDSL were directed not to give effect to any debit instruction in demat accounts of Mrs. Reena Bansal or in the demat accounts of any beneficial owner on the authority of power of attorney obtained by her. 2. In the interim order, it was prima facie observed that some of the shares purchased/credited in Mrs. Reena Bansal’s demat account were subsequently transferred to the demat accounts of various clients through off-market transfers. Further, Mrs. Reena Bansal had received shares through off-market transfers from various clients and sold the same in the market.

Mrs. Reena Bansal had also received/paid money from/to her various clients. The interim order was passed on the basis of prima facie findings that Mrs. Reena Bansal acted as unregistered sub-broker and had dealt in the securities on behalf of her clients without obtaining certificate of registration from SEBI, thereby violated regulation 11(1) of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992 and section 12(1) of SEBI Act. By the interim order, Mrs. Reena Bansal (hereinafter referred to as 'the noticee') was also provided 21 days time to file her reply to the allegations and also to avail opportunity of personal hearing, if she so desires. 3. Vide letter dated April 21, 2011, the interim order was sent to the noticee at her last known address. However the interim order was returned undelivered with a remark 'shifted'. The interim order was once again sent on May 18, 2011 to the noticee, which returned undelivered with a remark 'left'. Therefore, vide letter dated April 21, 2011, I-Sec, was advised to serve the interim order to the noticee. I-Sec, vide letter dated May 24, 2011, communicated to SEBI that it had couriered the interim order to Mrs. Reena Bansal at her address and enclosed a copy of the In respect of Mrs. Reena Bansal consignment tracker, which showed that the consignment was received by a person named 'Reena'.

In addition to that, the interim order was served on the noticee by way of affixture at the noticee’s last known address. As a measure of abundant caution, a newspaper advertisement was also published on May 15, 2013 in The Times of India (English Language - All editions) and Vijay Karnataka / Prajavani (Kannada Language - Karnataka Region) advising the noticee to collect the interim order from SEBI and submit her reply, if any within 14 days from the date of publication of the advertisement. The advertisement also informed that the interim order is available on SEBI website www.sebi.gov.in. I note that despite such services of interim order on the noticee, she did not file her reply to it. An opportunity of personal hearing was also granted to the noticee on March 26, 2014. The notice dated March 06, 2014 to that effect was issued to the noticee on her last known address, which returned undelivered. A newspaper advertisement was also published on March 11, 2014 in 'The Times of India' (English Language - All editions) and 'Vijay Karnataka' (Kannada Language - Karnataka Region) advising the noticee to attend the personal hearing on the scheduled date.

However, the noticee chose not to appear for the personal hearing on the scheduled date. 4. I note that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the noticee and she is not keen to avail the same. I further note that the noticee has even not filed any written reply/submission to the SCN. In view of these facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to decide the matter on the basis of material available on record. 5. Considering the material available on record, I do not find any reason to draw any inference other than those drawn in the interim order dated April 21, 2011. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no intervention is called for, at this stage, in either vacating the interim direction or modifying it. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section 19 of the SEBI Act, read with sections 11 and 11B thereof hereby confirm the directions issued in respect of Mrs. Reena Bansal (PAN: AHRPB9035G) vide ad interim ex-parte order dated April 21, 2011. 6. This Order shall remain in force till further directions.

Date: June 9th, 2014 RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL Place: Mumbai WHOLE TIME MEMBER SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA