SEBI [7] (" Manoj Gaur ") further illustrated how mere access to information and familial ties cannot, by themselves, sustain the weight of an insider trading charge. When SEBI accused Gaur, Executive Chairman of Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., of insider trading, the charge rested on the premise that Gaur, having access to UPSI, had passed it on to his wife and brother, who then purchased shares during a period when the company's trading window was shut. On paper, the case looked tightly drawn: trial balances had arrived at the corporate office by October 10, 2008; the trading window closed on October 11; trades followed on October 13, 14, and 16. To SEBI, the sequence signaled an irresistible inference. But the SAT, dismantling the linearity of this timeline, reminded SEBI that timing alone doesn't prove motive or transmission. Insider trading is not presumed, it must be proved. SAT approached the case with the caution it demanded.