^{Getty Images}

The Blurred Boundaries of Trading Tactics

In the high-speed world of global financial markets, arbitrage is often hailed as a mechanism that enhances efficiency. But when trading strategies start influencing prices rather than simply exploiting inefficiencies, regulators get involved. That’s exactly what happened in India this July, when the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) took rare action against U.S.-based high-frequency trading firm Jane Street Group, accusing it of market manipulation.

The incident has reignited an age-old question: When does legal arbitrage cross the line into illegal market manipulation?

Arbitrage vs. Market Manipulation: What’s the Difference?

At its core, arbitrage involves buying and selling the same asset in different markets to profit from price differences. It's legal, commonplace, and even essential to modern markets. On the other hand, market manipulation is the intentional distortion of prices or trading volumes to create misleading appearances in the market, often with the aim of unfairly profiting.

Intent and market impact are the two core factors regulators look at when distinguishing the two. As Pradeep Yadav, a finance professor at the University of Oklahoma, puts it:

“If you’re the one creating the arbitrage opportunity by pushing prices out of alignment—especially in a less liquid market—then that’s manipulation.”

What Happened with Jane Street?

On July 3, 2025, SEBI issued a 105-page interim order barring Jane Street from Indian securities markets and alleging that the firm deliberately manipulated India’s Nifty Bank Index—a key benchmark that tracks the banking sector.

According to SEBI:

• Jane Street executed massive trades in stocks and index futures tied to Nifty Bank early in the day.
• Later, it made significant bets on the decline of the index through options.
• These trades were quickly unwound, allegedly pushing prices downward and boosting the profitability of its options positions.
• The scale and rapid turnaround of trades, SEBI claimed, lacked any “plausible economic rationale.”

Jane Street has strongly denied the allegations, stating in an internal communication to employees that it was simply engaging in “basic index arbitrage.” The firm has announced its intention to challenge the ban, and has deposited $567 million into an escrow account as directed by SEBI, while seeking permission to resume trading.

Legal Debate: Is It Arbitrage or Manipulation?

A major element in determining wrongdoing is mens rea—Latin for “guilty mind.”
Yadav explains that arbitrage becomes manipulation when one side of the trade is deliberately engineered to benefit the other, especially in illiquid markets like India’s spot and futures markets, which are more susceptible to price distortion due to their lower trading volumes compared to the highly liquid options market.

SEBI’s Case in Detail

SEBI’s two main allegations are:

1. Artificially distorting the cash market (stocks and futures) to profit from positions in the options market.
2. Consistent pattern of losses in spot markets combined with profits in options—suggesting intent to manipulate prices rather than genuine market prediction.

SEBI cited past judgments to argue that no trader intentionally incurs losses unless there’s a manipulative goal behind it. The regulator claimed that the size disparity between Jane Street’s spot and options trades was a red flag, inconsistent with a typical arbitrage strategy.

Industry Reactions: Not Everyone Agrees

V Raghunathan, a former SEBI board member, believes the trades fall under aggressive but legal arbitrage. He points out that firms like Jane Street specialize in exploiting tiny inefficiencies, whether between ETFs and their underlying assets, or across different exchanges.

He likens such practices to latency arbitrage—a controversial but still legal strategy where traders profit from milliseconds of information advantage.

“Unless Jane Street was spoofing, using insider information, or placing deceptive orders, it does not constitute market manipulation,” said Raghunathan.

Similarly, Paul Rowady, Director of Research at Alphacution Research, says that aggressive trading isn’t inherently illegal:

“The distinction depends heavily on the regulator’s interpretation and the structure of the local market.”

Systemic Issues in India’s Market Structure

The Jane Street case has also highlighted structural weaknesses in India’s markets, especially the liquidity imbalance between the spot and derivatives markets.

According to SEBI’s own research:

• Over 9.6 million retail equity derivatives traders were active in the past year.
• 91% of them lost money.

This staggering figure points to a larger issue—sophisticated players like Jane Street may not be breaking laws per se, but they are operating in an environment where retail traders are consistently at a disadvantage.

Global Perspective: How Other Regulators View Similar Cases

In the U.S., cases of market manipulation usually hinge on evidence of spoofing (placing then cancelling large orders to mislead other traders) or fraudulent intent. High-profile enforcement actions by the SEC and CFTC often involve these clear signals of manipulation.

Former SEC litigator Howard Fischer offers a vivid analogy:

“Arbitrage is like buying fire insurance on a neighbor’s house stacked with candles. Manipulation is gifting him fireworks and gasoline.”

In other words, arbitrage exploits inefficiencies. Manipulation creates them.

Final Thoughts: A Wake-Up Call for Regulators?

Whether Jane Street’s tactics are ultimately deemed legal or not, the case is already shifting the regulatory conversation. For SEBI and other global regulators, this may be a pivotal moment to tighten oversight, improve market structure, and establish clearer boundaries between complex but legal trading strategies and outright manipulation.

As markets grow more algorithmic and competitive, one thing is clear: Intent, transparency, and proportionality will be the deciding factors in future regulatory battles.

‍