India Regulator SEBI Alleges BofA Workers Shared Private Information in Block Trade
India's market regulator SEBI has accused Bank of America of regulatory violations in a $170 million Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC block trade, alleging improper sharing of price-sensitive information between employees not directly involved in the transaction and providing misleading information to investigators. The case led to three investment bankers exiting the firm and the bank is now preparing its response to the show cause notice.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
India's Securities and Exchange Board (SEBI) has accused Bank of America Corp of serious regulatory violations in connection with a $170 million block trade involving Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC shares. The allegations center on improper sharing of material non-public information and misleading regulatory investigators during the probe.
Investigation Findings and Allegations
SEBI issued a show cause notice to Bank of America alleging that the bank improperly circulated price-sensitive information related to the ABSL AMC share sale. According to the regulator's findings, members of the deal team shared confidential details with employees who were not directly involved in executing the transaction, violating established internal controls.
The investigation revealed multiple breaches of insider trading regulations, with SEBI stating that the bank's conduct demonstrated "failure to maintain Chinese walls with broking/research arms, impacting safekeeping of confidential information and internal controls."
| Key Details: | Information |
|---|---|
| Deal Value: | $170 million (15 billion rupees) |
| Bank Appointment: | February 28, 2024 |
| Formal Announcement: | March 18, 2024 |
| SEBI Notice: | Sent months ago |
Regulatory Violations and Information Sharing
SEBI's investigation found that information related to the ABSL AMC dealings was not handled on a "need-to-know" basis. The regulator discovered that at the deal team's request, multiple divisions within the bank reached out to investors and shared confidential details. Bank employees were sharing information between workers who were not directly involved in the deal, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The notice specifically cites the bank's interactions with three major investors during the period between the bank's appointment and the formal announcement:
| Investor: | Type |
|---|---|
| HDFC Life: | India's second-largest private insurer |
| Norges Bank: | Norway's central bank |
| Enam Holdings: | Indian investment firm |
Misleading Investigators Allegations
SEBI has additionally alleged that Bank of America provided incomplete information during the investigation when the regulator originally inquired about the matter. The regulator claims the bank initially told SEBI that its processes around the block trade were compliant but later revised its submission after an internal review.
The bank subsequently provided records showing that individuals outside the core deal team had interacted with investors about the transaction, contradicting its initial statements to regulators.
Internal Changes and Response
Bank of America is preparing its reply to the regulator's findings. The case initially came to light through a whistleblower complaint, which led to an internal bank investigation. As a result of the internal probe, three Bank of America investment bankers in India exited the firm during 2024.
The bank has been seeking to rebuild its investment-banking team in the country since then. The company received approval to appoint Vikram Sahu as its chief executive officer for India.
Legal and Regulatory Context
Sharing material non-public information ahead of a market announcement can allow select investors to benefit from anticipated price movements and is prohibited in India, the US, and other markets. Block trades are large, privately negotiated deals for securities, executed off public exchanges and usually between big investment firms to avoid moving prices in the public markets.
Legal experts view this case as primarily an internal controls failure rather than classic insider trading. "This case looks less like classic insider trading and more like an internal-controls failure, which can attract serious regulatory action," said Sumit Agrawal, Senior Partner at Regstreet Law.





























