The agency had alleged that the promoters of MCX-SX had The agency had alleged that the promoters of MCX-SX hadentered into a buy back arrangement with a nationalised bankin violation of Securities Contract Regulation Act, 1956 andSecurities Contract (Regulation) (Manner of Increasing andMaintaining Public Shareholdings in Recognised StockExchanges) Regulation, 2006. CBI had said in its FIR that the accused allegedly inconnivance with SEBI officials, deliberately suppressed thismaterial fact while applying for extension of recognition ofthe Stock Exchange, to conduct trade in currency derivatives,and, fraudulently obtained the extension of recognition of theexchange in the year 2009 by cheating SEBI. The agency further alleged that SEBI officialsdeliberately did not issue notice to the stock exchange forcancellation of its recognition in the currency derivatives,when SEBI had already rejected request of the same stockexchange for trading in other segments. MCX-SX was initially given licence to operate in alimited segment of currency derivatives in 2008, but SEBI hadrefused permission to allow it to act as a full-fledged boursefor years as it was not found to be in compliance withexisting regulations for the same. A senior SEBI official in September 2010 had rejectedMCX-SX application for a full-fledged exchange, saying it wasnot in compliance with shareholding regulations and it was nota ‘fit and proper’ entity for such a business. MCX-SX could launch services as a full-fledged bourseonly in 2013 after it met all the necessary regulations andconditions imposed by SEBI. PTI ABS LUXDV


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here