SEBI penalises 23 in Decillion Finance YouTube manipulation case

The Enforcement Action

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has imposed monetary penalties totalling Rs 2.15 crore on 23 individuals and entities over what it describes as a co-ordinated scheme to manipulate the share price of Decillion Finance Limited (DFL) using misleading YouTube videos. The penalties were set out in an adjudication order dated 3 August 2026, bearing reference Order/AK/RK/2026-27/32567-32589, signed by Adjudicating Officer Amit Kapoor at Mumbai.

The order was passed under Section 15-I of the SEBI Act, 1992 read with Rule 5 of the SEBI (Procedure for Holding Inquiry and Imposing Penalties) Rules, 1995. The heaviest single penalty, Rs 2 crore, was imposed jointly and severally on Abhay Dwivedi and Anshu Mishra, together with Manish Mishra, Ankur Sharma, Vivek Chauhan, Dipak Dwiwedi, Neetu Dwivedi, Pallavi and Amrit Pal Singh, for what SEBI found to be fraudulent and unfair trade practices. Smaller penalties, ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakh, were imposed on several noticees, including five corporate entities, for disclosure failures.

Notably, Decillion Finance Limited itself is not a noticee. According to the order, the company told SEBI the information circulating about it was "misleading, incorrect" and that "some unknown persons were misusing its name". DFL said it had lodged a complaint at Lal Bazar Police Station and with the cyber and CID departments. The findings recorded in the order are SEBI's, arrived at through its own adjudication, and are appealable to the Securities Appellate Tribunal.

How the Scheme Worked

According to the order, SEBI investigated trading in the DFL scrip over an investigation period running from 20 October 2022 to 14 February 2023. During that window, the order records, the price opened at Rs 22.55 and rose to a high of Rs 95.10 on 17 January 2023, before falling back to close at Rs 61.25 on 14 February 2023. SEBI divided the period into three patches: a pre-video accumulation phase, a video phase, and a post-video price-fall phase.

The order states that Noticees 1 and 2 uploaded two videos to a YouTube channel called "Stock Yatra", the first on 1 January 2023 and the second on 14 January 2023. Per the order, the first video cited a then-current price of about Rs 55, a three-month target of Rs 500 and a one-year target of Rs 2,000, and claimed that mutual funds and foreign investors had invested in DFL and that it was about to enter a joint venture with Bajaj Finance. SEBI found these claims to be false and misleading, relying in part on DFL's own clarification that it had no such joint venture and no connection to the persons named.

SEBI traced the reach of the videos through information obtained from Google LLC, including sign-up and upload IP addresses. The order records that payments were made to Google AdSense during the period the videos were uploaded, including a series of transactions running into several lakh rupees, which SEBI treated as evidence that the videos were actively promoted rather than incidental.

The order describes a pattern in which certain noticees accumulated shares of DFL during the pre-video patch and "systematically offloaded those shares in Patch-II at elevated prices to the gullible investors and generated wrongful gains of Rs. 1.27 crores". On the basis of connections, trading patterns and the preponderance of probability, SEBI concluded that Noticees 1 to 7, 11 and 12 "colluded with each" other to execute the scheme. The order sets out links between the noticees, including shared addresses, familial relationships and fund transfers between connected accounts and companies.

The procedural history recorded in the order shows that SEBI approved adjudication proceedings and appointed the Adjudicating Officer by an order dated 20 June 2025. A common show-cause notice dated 19 September 2025 was issued to the noticees. Where noticees did not file replies, the order notes, the matter proceeded ex-parte on the basis of the material on record.

The Law Invoked

The order cites Section 12A(a), (b) and (c) of the SEBI Act, 1992, which prohibit the use of manipulative and deceptive devices and fraudulent practices in dealing with securities. Read with these, it invokes Regulations 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) and Regulation 4(1) and 4(2) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003, which define and prohibit specific manipulative acts, including creating a false or misleading appearance of trading and disseminating false information to induce dealings.

For the fraudulent and unfair trade practice violations, penalties were imposed under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, which provides for a penalty of not less than Rs 5 lakh, extending up to Rs 25 crore or three times the profits made, whichever is higher.

Separately, the order cites Regulations 29(1) and 29(2) read with Regulation 29(3) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, which require large shareholders to disclose their acquisitions. Those disclosure failures attracted penalties under Section 15A(b) of the SEBI Act, which covers failure to furnish required information. In fixing the amounts, the Adjudicating Officer referred to the factors in Section 15J of the SEBI Act, including disproportionate gain, investor loss and the repetitive nature of the default.

What Happens Next

The order directs the noticees to pay the penalties within 45 days of receipt through SEBI's online payment facility. It states that in the event of failure to pay, SEBI may initiate recovery proceedings under Section 28A of the SEBI Act, which allows attachment and sale of movable and immovable property to realise the amount along with interest.

As an adjudication order, this is a regulator's finding rather than a criminal conviction, and it is subject to appeal. Any aggrieved noticee may challenge the order before the Securities Appellate Tribunal, the specialist tribunal that hears appeals against SEBI orders, and thereafter, on a question of law, before the Supreme Court. Until such an appeal is decided, the findings stand as SEBI's determination on the record.

SEBI also noted that action had been taken against several of the noticees in earlier matters, a factor it weighed while considering the repetitive nature of the conduct. That prior record does not form part of the present penalty but is recorded in the order as context.

What It Means

For ordinary investors, the order is a reminder of how stock-tip videos and social-media "targets" can be weaponised. The claims SEBI found to be false in this matter, a Rs 500 target and a Bajaj Finance tie-up, are exactly the kind of specific, exciting detail designed to trigger buying. A useful defence is to treat any unsolicited price target, especially in a thinly traded small-cap, as a red flag rather than a tip, and to check company announcements only through the stock exchange filings and the company's own verified disclosures.

The matter also shows the practical value of the registration and disclosure architecture SEBI polices. Investors can verify whether someone offering investment advice is a registered investment adviser or research analyst through SEBI's public registers, and can view a company's shareholding and material announcements on the BSE and NSE websites. Where a company itself, as DFL did here, publicly disowns information circulating in its name, that disclaimer is a strong signal to stay away.

Finally, the order illustrates that a price that has run up sharply on hype can fall just as fast once the promotion stops. In this case the scrip gave up much of its gain within weeks. Investors who bought near the peak on the strength of the videos would have borne the loss, while, per the order, those who accumulated early booked the gains. Calm scepticism, not fear, is the takeaway.

FAQ

What exactly did SEBI order?

SEBI imposed monetary penalties totalling Rs 2.15 crore on 23 noticees through an adjudication order dated 3 August 2026. The largest penalty, Rs 2 crore, was imposed jointly and severally on a group of noticees for fraudulent and unfair trade practices under Section 15HA, with smaller penalties for disclosure failures under Section 15A(b).

Is this a criminal conviction?

No. This is a SEBI adjudication order, a regulatory finding under the SEBI Act, not a criminal conviction handed down by a court. SEBI found the noticees liable for the violations set out in the order, but that finding is appealable to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, and any noticee who disputes it retains the right to challenge it through the appeal process.

Can the order be appealed?

Yes. Any noticee aggrieved by the order may appeal to the Securities Appellate Tribunal, and thereafter, on a question of law, to the Supreme Court. If penalties are not paid within 45 days, SEBI may begin recovery proceedings under Section 28A of the SEBI Act.

How can I check if an adviser or a stock tip is genuine?

Verify whether the person is a SEBI-registered investment adviser or research analyst using SEBI's public registers on its website. Cross-check any claim about a company, such as a joint venture or a large investor, against the company's filings on the BSE and NSE. Unsolicited price targets circulated on social media should be treated with caution.

Where can I read the official order?

The full adjudication order is published on SEBI's website in the Enforcement section under Orders of the Adjudicating Officer, and is linked in the source note below this report.

This report is based on the official SEBI adjudication order dated 3 August 2026 in the matter of Decillion Finance Limited.