Madhabi’s response raises new critical questions: Hindenburg Research – Times of India

Mumbai: Late Sunday night, Hindenburg Research put up its response to a release by Sebi chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch and husband Dhaval that had called out the US short-seller’s Saturday report as an attempt of “character assassination” of the regulatory chief.
Posting on its X account, Hindenburg said that the response from Puri Buch “includes several important admissions and raises numerous new critical questions”.
In its release — the second one on Sunday — they had detailed their investments through the offshore investment vehicles. They also said that Hindenburg was served a show cause notice for violations of various laws in India.
In its reply, Hindenburg, among several follow up queries and comments, pointed towards an email by Puri Buch that she sent on behalf of her husband on Feb 25, 2018. “This is especially important given whistleblower documents showing that Buch used her personal email to do business using her husband’s name while serving as a whole-time member (WTM) of Sebi,” Hindenburg said.
“In 2017, weeks ahead of her appointment as Sebi (WTM), she ensured the accounts with ties to Adani “be registered solely in the name of Dhaval Buch,” her husband, per whistleblower documents. “Despite disclaiming control, a private email she sent a year into her Sebi term shows she redeemed stakes in the funds through her husband’s name,” Hindenburg said.
“This raises the question: What other investments or business has the Sebi chairperson engaged in through her husband’s name while serving in an official capacity?”
The response from Hindenburg also noted that Buch’s response now publicly confirmed her investment in an obscure Bermuda/Mauritius fund structure, alongside money allegedly siphoned by Vinod Adani (elder brother of Gautam Adani). “She also confirmed the fund was run by a childhood friend of her husband, who at the time was an Adani director,” it said.
While attaching a screenshot, the short-seller also said that one of the two advisory firms was still generating revenue, despite claims that they were dormant.