Mumbai: In 2024, three complaints were filed against former SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch, most of them were based on the August 10 Hindenburg Research report. The report accused Buch and her husband of holding undisclosed interests in offshore funds allegedly connected to a money-laundering network involving the Adani Group. The complainants, including TMC MP Mahua Moitra, alleged corruption, conflict of interest, and quid pro quo dealings during Buch’s tenure at SEBI.
Key Allegations Examined
Investment Conflict
The complaints claimed Buch and her husband invested in funds allegedly linked to Adani entities under SEBI scrutiny, without disclosure.
Quid Pro Quo Charges
It was alleged Buch’s consulting firms received payments from entities like Mahindra, Blackstone, and Wockhardt—firms being investigated by SEBI.
Misuse of ESOPs
Buch was accused of timing the sale of ICICI Bank ESOPs to her advantage, allegedly when SEBI had active investigations against ICICI.
Concealment from Expert Committee
Complainants claimed Buch withheld documents from a Supreme Court-appointed panel investigating Adani stock manipulation.
Improper Recusals
Although she declared recusals, it was alleged Buch still influenced SEBI decisions on cases where she had conflicts.
.jpg)
Lokpal’s Findings: No Case for Probe
A six-member Lokpal panel led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar dismissed all complaints, calling them “untenable, unsubstantiated, and bordering on frivolity.” The Lokpal found:
- No credible evidence of corruption, undue advantage, or quid pro quo.
- SEBI processes were independently run and legally sound.
- All financial disclosures and recusals were proper and verifiable.
The Hindenburg report, authored by a known short-seller, lacked credibility and could not form the sole basis for legal action.
The panel emphasised that speculation and assumptions did not meet the legal threshold under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Indirect Target of Politically Driven Complaints against Adani Group
The Lokpal observed that the complaints were attempts to politicise regulatory matters and indirectly target the Adani Group. It noted that SEBI’s regulatory conduct, including actions involving Adani, was validated by both the Supreme Court and the Lokpal itself.
