PASS Securities Operations and Risk Management Examination Difficulty: Beginner 2 Questions   5 min read
📌 Chapter 2.5 — REGULATORS

Consider a scenario where your firm’s surveillance software flags a significant purchase of shares by a client just days before a major merger announcement. As an operations lead, you are required to report this to the Compliance Officer, who then initiates an internal inquiry. In such cases, the client might argue that the trade was part of a pre-planned investment strategy or occurred due to an automated trading algorithm that was not privy to the non-public information.

These represent what SEBI classifies as exonerating circumstances, where the intent or the connection to insider information is demonstrably absent.

Understanding these defenses is critical for anyone in the back office or risk department because your documentation is the primary evidence used during an investigation. For example, if a client claims they traded based on a long-standing financial model or a previously communicated investment objective, the existence of a well-maintained KYC profile and a documented history of similar portfolio adjustments serves as a strong rebuttal to allegations of insider trading.

When we handle audit trails and trade logs, we aren’t just filing papers; we are maintaining the very evidence that allows legitimate investors to distinguish their conduct from malicious misuse of price-sensitive data.

In the Indian markets, the burden of proof often shifts when a ‘connected person’ possesses Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI). However, the regulations provide specific safe harbors, such as trades executed through a pre-cleared trading plan or off-market transfers between insiders with the same level of access.

If you are reconciling a client’s account and notice high-frequency, suspicious patterns, your ability to identify whether these trades were backed by a standing institutional instruction or a sudden, unexplained spike is what protects the firm from regulatory scrutiny. Knowing these nuances prevents the operations team from over-reacting to legitimate activity while ensuring that truly irregular trades are escalated with precision.

Ultimately, viewing the regulatory framework as a rigid barrier is a mistake, as it is designed to protect the integrity of the market while allowing genuine commercial activity. By maintaining meticulous records and understanding the validity of these defensive arguments, you effectively serve as a bridge between the client and the regulator. Keeping your logs clean and your reporting timely ensures that when the regulator asks for a reconstruction of market events, your firm stands on the side of transparency and compliance.

Nuance

⚠️ Nuance
Many candidates incorrectly assume that being a ‘connected person’ makes one automatically guilty of insider trading. The core misconception is that the possession of information is identical to the usage of information for gain. In practice, the legal framework accounts for scenarios like ‘blind trusts’ or ‘passive investment’ where the decision-making process is disconnected from the flow of confidential data, which is a distinction that must be documented clearly to avoid regulatory penalties.

Check Your Understanding

Practice Question 1

Under the SEBI (PIT) Regulations, which of the following is most likely to be accepted as a valid defense for a trade executed by an insider while in possession of UPSI?

Practice Question 2

Which of the following scenarios would NOT constitute an exonerating circumstance for an insider under SEBI regulations?

This is a companion read for Section 2.5 — REGULATORS from PASS Securities Operations and Risk Management Examination by Akhilesh Gururani, available on Amazon Kindle.

Copyright © 2026 `Akhilesh Gururani. All rights reserved.