Madhabi Puri Buch, former Chief Executive of SEBI, is leading efforts to address the security issues raised by Ex-SEBI CIT Madhabi Buch. Upon learning of the claims against SEBI, Buch emphasized that SEBI was actively investigating the matter and took note that the company had been involved in regular regulatory actions since the start of the probe.
TheSEBI probe, which began in April 2024, involved a rigorous multi-disciplinary team tasked with analyzing Jane Street’s trading structures and patterns. The order sought to clear the name of the global quant firm, seeking a claim against its use of index derivatives for expiry-day manipulation. SEBI’s initial action was over a year prior to the July 3 interim order, which defeated the claims.
On Friday, SEBI was barred from buying and selling securities in India, and the USD 567 million in US dollars were seizure assets. Meanwhile, a U.S.-based global trading firm, Jane Street, is challenging SEBI’s findings, calling them “extremely inflammatory.”
SEBI President Anil Satya Hosai and Finance Minister Ashutosh Narayan publicly accuse SEBI of failing to investigate the issues, with Jane Street canceling a public statement issued in response. Buch, however, has strongly characterized the intervening period as the beginning of continuous regulatory action, stating that the regulatory body issued several policy circulars and sent a cease-and-desist letter to the firm, all before the public order was disrupted.
Puri Buch expressed deep dissatisfaction with SEBI’s actions, calling them “extremely inflammatory” and consequently criticized SEBI for failing to make the facts public. She also called the regulatory body “abusive and corrupt,” referring to the attempts to punish the firm.
The July 3 order was narrowly enough guided to prevent Jane Street from accessing the Indian market and yet evenRobin of the NSE issued a letter الحكمing the follow-through. However, the Ch曜alasi of the NSE directed the defendant to take certain additional actions to influence options pricing on expiry days.
Pursuing a multi-faceted approach, Buch believes that the regulatory body is still investigating the issues, possibly beyond the initial Funds. The order for the regulatory bodyextracted enough attention from key players to give a compelling closure.
Madhabi Buch’s strong reaction reflects an underlying concern that the regulatory framework may need to evolve to address systemic issues in the Indian stock market. The article serves as a sharp wake-up call for both Indian and U.S. regulators, highlighting the need for ongoing diligence.
