Ranjani Raghavan和Shruti Mahajan报道，Jane Street Group LLC在针对印度市场监管机构的辩护中否认了操纵市场的指控，并向当地法院表示，银行指数中的股票涨跌与其交易活动无关。
Street Group LLC denied charges of manipulation as it mounted its defense against India’s markets regulator, telling a local court that stocks in a banking index fell or rose irrespective of its trading activity.
这家华尔街公司要求提供印度证券交易委员会（SEBI）交易记录中包含的已编辑交易对手信息，这些记录是监管机构7月临时命令的一部分。
The Wall Street firm sought redacted counterparty information included in the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s trade logs that formed part of the regulator’s July interim order.
Jane Street的上诉是对SEBI在2025年7月3日对该公司的命令及其没收484亿卢比（5.03亿美元）涉嫌非法所得后其权威性的考验。尽管该公司否认了这些指控，但它已存入这笔资金，但尚未恢复在印度的交易。证券上诉法庭的下一次听证会定于10月6日举行。
Jane Street’s appeal is a test case of SEBI’s authority following its July 3, 2025, order against the firm and seizure of alleged ill-gotten gains of 48.4 billion rupees ($503 million). While the company denied the allegations, it deposited the money but has yet to resume trading in India. The next hearing in the Securities Appellate Tribunal is scheduled for Oct. 6.
SEBI指控Jane Street影响了NSE Nifty银行指数股票的价格，该指数是一个流行的指标，其期权合约与之挂钩。
SEBI has accused Jane Street of influencing the prices of stocks on the NSE Nifty Bank Index, a popular gauge with options contracts tied to it.
否认滥用指控的、代表该公司的律师Darius Khambata向法庭表示，当Jane Street卖出股票时，指数股票反而上涨。
Denying the charges of abuse, Darius Khambata, a lawyer representing the firm, told the tribunal that the index stocks rose when Jane Street sold shares.
即使国家证券交易所和监管机构的监控部门已澄清该公司没有市场滥用行为，SEBI仍续展了对Jane Street的调查。
SEBI had renewed its investigation against Jane Street even after the National Stock Exchange and the regulator’s surveillance department cleared the firm of market abuse.
这家华尔街交易商要求SEBI提供有关其部门间沟通和促使监管机构成立调查委员会的举报人投诉的额外数据。
The Wall Street trader has sought additional data from SEBI on its inter-department communication and whistleblower complaints that prompted the regulator to set up an investigation committee.
Khambata辩称，向交易公司扣留文件会“损害”程序，并违背“自然正义”，并补充说Jane Street希望了解监管机构为何忽视其内部审查，该审查已澄清了该交易公司。
Withholding documents from the trading firm would “vitiate” the process and goes against “natural justice,” Khambata argued, adding that Jane Street wanted to understand why the regulator disregarded its own internal review that had cleared the trading firm.