Sebi bans US-based Jane Street from securities mkt; impounds illegal gains of Rs 4,843 cr
New Delhi, Jul 4 (PTI): Markets regulator Sebi has barred US-based Jane Street Group from the securities markets and directed the group to disgorge unlawful gains of Rs 4,843 crore for allegedly manipulating stock indices through positions taken in derivatives segment.
This could be the highest disgorgement amount ever directed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi).
In its interim order, the regulator has debarred JSI Investments, JSI2 Investments Pvt Ltd, Jane Street Singapore Pte Ltd, and Jane Street Asia Trading -- entities collectively referred to as the Jane Street Group -- from trading until further notice, while continuing its investigation.
Established in 2000, Jane Street Group LLC is a global proprietary trading firm in the financial services industry. It employs more than 2,600 people across five offices in the US, Europe, and Asia, and conducts trading operations in 45 countries.
The Jane Street (JS) Group has come under Sebi's scrutiny for allegedly manipulating index levels in the stock market to earn illegal profits, primarily through the highly liquid Bank Nifty and Nifty index options segments.
An investigation by Sebi revealed that over 21 expiry days between January 2023 and May 2025, the group executed large trades in the underlying cash and futures markets to influence index movements and profit from massive positions in the options market.
Two key strategies were identified-- one involved buying heavily in Bank Nifty stocks and futures in the morning and selling them aggressively in the afternoon to create a softer close, while the other involved concentrated selling or buying in the last two hours of the expiry day to sway index levels.
These actions helped the group earn illegal profits of about Rs 4,843 crore, even as they incurred smaller losses in cash and futures trades, the regulator said.
Sebi also noted that between January 2023 and March 2025, the JS Group recorded substantial trading activity across various segments of the market. The group made gains of Rs 44,358 crore from index options trading, which formed the bulk of their profits.
However, these were partially offset by losses of Rs 7,208 crore in stock futures, Rs 191 crore in index futures, and Rs 288 crore in the cash market. After accounting for all gains and losses, the JS Group reported a net total profit of Rs 36,671 crore during this period, Sebi noted.
The case stems from media reports in April 2024, which suggested that Jane Street and its related entities may have used unauthorised proprietary trading strategies in the Indian options market.
Sebi noted that the JS Group continued to carry out suspicious trading activities, mainly near market closing on expiry day, by making large and aggressive trades to unfairly influence the index, even after receiving a warning in February and making promises to the NSE to stop such practices.
"Such egregious behaviour, in clear disregard/ defiance of the explicit advisory issued to them by NSE in February 2025, amply demonstrates that unlike the vast majority of Foreign Portfolio Investors and other market participants, JS Group is not a good faith actor that can be, or deserves to be, trusted.
"In the face of such a strong prima facie case that allowing the JS Group to continue as before may severely compromise investor protection on an extraordinary scale, Sebi has a duty to directly intervene," Sebi added.
Accordingly, Sebi said, "the total amount of unlawful gains earned by the JS Group from the alleged violations, Rs 4,843.57 crore, shall be impounded jointly and severally."
The entities have been "restrained from accessing the securities market and are further prohibited from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in securities, directly or indirectly."
Additionally, banks where the entities are holding accounts have been directed to ensure that no debits are made, without Sebi's permission, except for the purpose of complying with this order.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
