Hindenburg poses new questions for SEBI chairperson after she denies allegations

NEW DELHI: Following statements made by Madhabi Puri Buch and her husband Dhaval Buch, concerning allegations raised by Hindenburg Research on August 10, the US short seller has posed new questions for the SEBI chairperson alleging that her response contained several significant admissions and raised critical new questions.

In a post on ‘X’, the US short seller stated, “SEBI chairperson Madhabi Buch’s response to our report includes several important admissions and raises numerous new critical questions”. Further the post said that the SEBI chief’s response confirms her investment in an obscure Bermuda/Mauritius fund structure, alongside money allegedly siphoned by Vinod Adani.

“SEBI was tasked with investigating investment funds relating to the Adani matter, which would include funds Ms Buch was personally invested in and funds by the same sponsor which were specifically highlighted in our original report. This is obviously a massive conflict of interest”, Hindenburg alleged.

SEBI Chairperson Madhabi Buch’s response to our report includes several important admissions and raises numerous new critical questions.

(1/x) https://t.co/Usk0V6e90K

— Hindenburg Research (@HindenburgRes) August 11, 2024

The US short seller also raised concerns about the financial statements of SEBI Chief’s Singapore consulting entities during her tenure at SEBI.

“The Singaporean consulting entity she set up doesn’t publicly report its financials like revenue or profit, so it’s impossible to see how much money this entity has earned during her time at SEBI. The Indian entity, still 99 per cent owned by the SEBI chairperson, has generated Rs 23.985 million (US~USD 312,000) in revenue (i.e. consulting) during the financial years (’22, ’23, and ’24), while she was serving as chairperson, per its financial statements”, said Hindenburg.

Hindenburg also alleged that whistleblower documents have revealed that Buch used her personal email to conduct business under her husband’s name while serving as a whole-time member of SEBI. In 2017, just weeks before her appointment, she ensured that accounts with ties to Adani were registered solely in the name of her husband, Dhaval Buch.

Earlier, the SEBI chairperson and her husband had said that the investment in the fund referred to in the Hindenurg report was made before she had taken up the job. The statement said, “The investment in the fund referred to in the Hindenburg report was made in 2015 when they were both private citizens living in Singapore and almost 2 years before Madhabi joined SEBI, even as a wholetime member”.

“The decision to invest in this fund was because the Chief Investment Officer, Anil Ahuja, is Dhaval’s childhood friend from school and IIT Delhi and, being an ex-employee of Citibank, J.P. Morgan and 3i Group plc, had many decades of a strong investing career. The fact that these were the drivers of the investment decision is borne out by the fact that when, in 2018, Ahuja, left his position as CIO of the fund, we redeemed the investment in that fund,” the statement further reads.”As confirmed by Anil Ahuja, at no point in time did the fund invest in any bond, equity, or derivative of any Adani group company”, the statement had added.

On Saturday, the US-based firm alleged that SEBI’s chairperson Madhabi Buch and her husband had a stake in “both the obscure offshore entities used in the Adani money siphoning scandal”

In January 2023, Hindenburg published a report accusing the Adani Group of financial irregularities, leading to a significant drop in the company’s stock price. The group at the time had rubbished these claims.

In January 2024, the Supreme Court refused to transfer the probe into the allegations of stock price manipulation by the Adani group to an SIT and directed market regulator SEBI to complete its probe into two pending cases within three months. Earlier this year the SC also dismissed a plea seeking to review the verdict that had sought investigation by the market watchdog SEBI in the Adani-Hindenburg case. (ANI)