Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers.
If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: theprint.in/subscribe/
On July 3, 2025, India’s securities regulator, SEBI, took the extraordinary step of barring Jane Street, a United States-based quantitative trading powerhouse, from participating in Indian markets. The reason? A staggering ₹4,843 crore market manipulation scheme that involved algorithmic trading, regulatory arbitrage, and a blatant violation of securities law. More than a headline scandal, this is a case study on how even robust regulatory systems can be gamed by sophisticated players often at the cost of small investors and overall market integrity.
- Legal Framework: What the Law Prohibits
Market manipulation is a direct violation of the SEBI Act, 1992, especially under Section 12A(a)–(c). It is further governed by the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 (FUTP Regulations). Regulation 3 bars all forms of manipulative or deceptive practices in the securities market. Regulation 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b) define practices like circular trading, creation of artificial market conditions, or misleading appearances of liquidity or pricing as unlawful.
The Jane Street case squarely fits within this regulatory framework. However, its methods high-frequency trading (HFT), algorithmic strategies, and use of shadow entities show how bad actors can test the limits of these laws.
- The Scam Unveiled: Jane Street’s Modus Operandi
SEBI’s interim order outlines a precise, two-phase strategy employed by Jane Street’s group entities, JSI Investments, JSI2 Investments, Jane Street Singapore, and Jane Street Asia Trading.
- Phase I: Artificial Index Inflation
On a day when Bank Nifty was under pressure, the group purchased over ₹4,370 crore worth of Bank Nifty constituent stocks and futures, creating the false impression of a bullish trend.
- Phase II: Profiting Through Options
Simultaneously, Jane Street held bearish derivative positions, particularly deep out-of-the-money puts and short call options. Once the price level was inflated, the group reversed its cash and futures positions. The resulting drop in the index led to losses in futures but yielded massive profits in options ensuring net gains.
This conduct clearly violates Regulation 4(2)(a), which prohibits acts that create a false or misleading appearance of trading activity.
III. Fraud vs. Strategy: Judicial View of Market Abuse
At first glance, Jane Street’s trades may resemble a legal arbitrage or hedging strategy. But Indian courts have developed a nuanced understanding of intent in securities fraud.
In SEBI v. Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017) 15 SCC 1, the Supreme Court held that fraudulent intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence even without a direct lie. Similarly, SEBI v. Rakhi Trading Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 13 SCC 753 clarified that synchronized reversal trades with predetermined price, counterparty, and timing, constitute a violation of the FUTP Regulations. Jane Street’s reversal trades match this precedent, trades that are structurally legal but contextually fraudulent due to their orchestrated nature.
- Regulatory Arbitrage: Bending the Rules with Shells
The most audacious element in this saga is regulatory arbitrage. Jane Street used Indian-incorporated entities to execute trades that foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) cannot perform. Under SEBI (FPI) Regulations, 2019, FPIs face restrictions in cash market operations, are bound by KYC norms, and must respect investment limits. Jane Street skirted these obligations by routing trades through domestic subsidiaries, enjoying the benefits of a domestic trader while retaining foreign investor protections.
This loophole demands urgent legislative attention. Corporate form cannot be a shield for regulatory avoidance.
- SEBI’s Response: Legal Sanctions Imposed
Acting under Sections 11(1), 11(4), 11B(1), and 11D of the SEBI Act, 1992, SEBI exercised its full quasi-judicial power to contain the fallout:
- ₹4,843 crore in wrongful gains must be deposited in an escrow account.
- All implicated entities are barred from market access—directly or indirectly.
- No asset transfers or disposals are permitted.
- A complete list of Indian assets and accounts must be disclosed within 15 days.
- Entities may close open derivative positions within 3 months or at contract expiry.
- RTAs are to block redemptions or securities transfers linked to the entities.
These steps are not merely punitive; they serve as systemic deterrents, aimed at preserving investor confidence and market transparency.
- Lessons and the Road Ahead
This case has exposed major weaknesses in India’s financial regulatory architecture:
- Beneficial ownership rules must be tightened to prevent misuse of domestic entities by foreign giants.
- Mandatory algorithmic trading disclosures and HFT audit trails are essential.
- FPI rules must include “look-through” provisions to capture the actual controlling interest behind trades.
India must also strengthen international cooperation using the IOSCO framework and bilateral MoUs, enabling cross-border surveillance and enforcement.
Jane Street’s case isn’t just about a number, it’s a breach of trust in fair markets. The incident demands aggressive reform, tighter enforcement, and global coordination. SEBI’s action is a step forward, but the game must change before the next manipulator exploits it.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.