sebi:CGM/GG/QJC2/WRO/WRO/21705/2022-23
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Partially upheld allegations of violation of IA Regulations (Regulation 7, 15(1), 15(9), 15(13), 16(b)(iii), Code of Conduct clauses 1, 2, 3, 6, 8); allegations under PFUTP Regulations and Section 12A of SEBI Act not substantiated
Provisions invoked
- s. 19
- s. 12A
- s. 12(3)
Regulations
- Reg. 7
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 2(1)(c)
- Reg. 17
- Reg. 15
- Reg. 7(1)
- Reg. 21
- Reg. 3(a)
- Reg. 15(1)
- Reg. 7(2)
- Reg. 23
- Reg. 19
- Reg. 15A
- Reg. 19(1)
- Reg. 27
- Reg. 27(5)
- Reg. 202
- Reg. 15(9)
- Reg. 15(13)
- Reg. 16(b)
Parties
- Bonaz Capital Investment Adviser
Holding
The Noticee violated Regulation 7, 15(1), 15(9), 15(13), 16(b)(iii) of the IA Regulations and Clauses 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 of the Code of Conduct by failing to ensure certification/qualification of employees, failing to conduct proper risk profiling, categorizing low-risk clients as high-risk to generate higher fees, and charging unreasonable advisory fees. However, allegations of violation of PFUTP Regulations and Section 12A of the SEBI Act regarding assured profit promises on the website were not substantiated for want of concrete evidence of client inducement.
Full text
Order in respect of Bonaz Capital Investment Adviser Page 2 of 47 3. During the course of inspection, documents/information pertaining to KYC, risk profiling, change in risk profiling, product list, client master, invoices, SMS logs, employees list, compliance audit report, NISM Certifications, website viz., www. bonazcapital.com and documents/information provided by the complainants on SCORES (SEBI Complaints Redress System), etc., were examined and following irregularities were inter-alia observed:- a. Website of the Noticee i.e. www. bonazcapital.com contained statement which was in the nature of promising assured profit/unrealistic return to the clients to induce investors/clients on pretext of high returns and profit assurance;
Order in respect of Bonaz Capital Investment Adviser Page 3 of 47 e. The Noticee categorized all clients i.e. senior citizens or pensioners or too young or whose income levels were low in high risk category and offered high risk products to low risk clients. The Noticee failed to assess suitability of the clients based on their income and charged advisory fees which was multiple times to the annual income of clients. Within a short span of time, risky products were offered to clients’ multiple times even though the earlier service had not been fully served/completed.
Order in respect of Bonaz Capital Investment Adviser Page 4 of 47 27 (1) of Intermediaries Regulations, to show cause as to why action, as recommended by the DA or any other penalty in terms of Regulation 27 of Intermediaries Regulations, should not be taken and/or imposed against the Noticee. A copy of the DA’s Report was also forwarded to the Noticee along with an advice to file reply, if any, within 21 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The Noticee vide reply email dated September 05, 2022 submitted that it has already filed detailed reply in its previous submissions to AO and requested exemption from filing reply to SCN-II.
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:CGM/GG/QJC2/WRO/WRO/21705/2022-23. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.