SEBI v. Anupam Narain Gupta and others (paid Telegram tips, Moksh Ornaments, 2026)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 8, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, in a single reading of the order; an independent second reading of 60 SEBI records agreed on every field for 56, the four misses being penalty amounts; a later sample of 50 of the SEBI records added on 9 October agreed on every field for 46. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (sebi-103248-social-media-ramps-2026) by email

A SEBI adjudicating officer ruled in July 2026 that four people who arranged and posted paid Telegram stock recommendations in Moksh Ornaments in early 2022 breached the PFUTP rules, with penalties totalling Rs 55 lakh. The case against nine others, including the Gupta family and three trading firms accused of selling into the rise, ended without penalty.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

5.5m INR

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars. This regulator states penalties in INR. The figure is recorded as published and is not converted, so it does not appear in the USD totals or medians used elsewhere on this site.

What is alleged to have happened

The adjudication order of 30 July 2026 was made by a SEBI adjudicating officer in Mumbai on a show-cause notice of 18 June 2025. It names thirteen noticees in the matter of market manipulation using social media in Moksh Ornaments Limited, a company listed on the NSE: Anupam Narain Gupta, Narain Kumar Gupta and his Hindu undivided family, Abhay Narain Gupta and his HUF, three broking and securities companies, and Rohit Arora (Noticees 1 to 9), and four people said to have promoted the stock, Amesh Surajlal Jaiswal, Jalaj Agrawal, Arvind Shukla and Aviral Saxena (Noticees 10 to 13).

SEBI alleged that Anupam Gupta engaged Mr Jaiswal to circulate misleading Telegram messages on 31 January and 1 February 2022 so that the first group could sell accumulated holdings at inflated prices, and that Mr Jaiswal passed the messages through Mr Agrawal to channel operators Mr Shukla and Mr Saxena. Statements recorded from Mr Agrawal and Mr Shukla describe cash payments for posting recommendations to channels with tens of thousands of subscribers.

The order holds that the promotion by Noticees 10 to 13 breached section 12A of the SEBI Act and regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations, and that Mr Jaiswal also breached a further provision for which a separate penalty applies. As to Noticees 1 to 9, the order records that the case against them rested largely on a statement from one noticee and disposes of the notice against them without penalty.

The penalties are Rs 20 lakh on Mr Jaiswal (Rs 15 lakh under section 15HA and Rs 5 lakh under section 15HB), Rs 15 lakh on Mr Agrawal, Rs 10 lakh on Mr Shukla and Rs 10 lakh on Mr Saxena, Rs 55 lakh in all. The order cites other recent penalties against some of the same people in similar Telegram matters. No restraint or disgorgement is ordered.

The record does not show appeals or payment, or investor losses. It describes no criminal case. Nine noticees were not found to have violated anything in this order.

This library tags the matter as social media ramps and paid stock promotion. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the order.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with 2 techniques in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Social media ramps — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
• Paid stock promotion — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2026-07-30 SEBI adjudication order imposing penalties

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• SEBI order
• SEBI order (PDF)

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added October 8, 2026. submit a correction.