The fact that the respondents had indulged in the trades at the relevant point in time is sufficient to conclude that they had conducted insider trading. 1.38 crore and initiated insider trading proceedings. The Court said that post-2015 Regulations, unlike the erstwhile 1992 Prohibition of Insider Trading Regulation, the purposes for which the proceeds are employed is an irrelevant consideration. In other words, there was no specific bar against the consideration of the issue of where the proceeds of such insider trading transactions are used.” “It is clearly established that, in view of the above discussion that the respondents had engaged in insider trading and, as such, had avoided approximately Rs.1.38 crores in losses.