sebi:Order/AK/DS/2025-26/31543

SEBI · SEBI · 2024-10-25 · Amit Kapoor, Adjudicating Officer

This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.

Facts / Headnote

Violations established; penalties imposed under Sections 15C, 15EB and 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992

Provisions invoked

• s. 15
• s. 19
• s. 12A
• s. 15H
• s. 15J
• s. 15C
• s. 15E

Regulations

• Reg. 7
• Reg. 3
• Reg. 16
• Reg. 9
• Reg. 17
• Reg. 25
• Reg. 15
• Reg. 2
• Reg. 22
• Reg. 21
• Reg. 15(1)
• Reg. 23
• Reg. 7(2)
• Reg. 18
• Reg. 7(1)(a)
• Reg. 15A
• Reg. 19(1)
• Reg. 15(9)
• Reg. 15(13)
• Reg. 13(b)

Parties

• Rajiv Kumar Singh, Proprietor of Elite Investment Advisory Services

Holding

The Noticee was found to have violated multiple provisions of the IA Regulations, PFUTP Regulations, SEBI Act, 1992 and applicable SEBI circulars, and penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs under Section 15C, Rs. 20 lakhs under Section 15EB and Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 15HA of the SEBI Act, 1992 (total Rs. 35 lakhs) were imposed.

Full text

Adjudication Order in the matter of Rajiv Kumar Singh, Proprietor of Elite Investment Advisory Services Page 2 of 37 (hereinafter referred to as “PFUTP Regulations”), and applicable SEBI Circulars by the Noticee were observed.

Adjudication Order in the matter of Rajiv Kumar Singh, Proprietor of Elite Investment Advisory Services Page 3 of 37 5.1.2. The Noticee had also submitted that Mr. Vivek Rana, Head of Investment Adviser and Ms. Anjum Ansari, Investment Adviser, were the persons associated with investment advice during the inspection period. 5.1.3. Video recordings of the office of the Noticee were downloaded from the Noticee’s server during on-site inspection. It was observed that 50 to 60 tele- callers were working in the office of the Noticee. Call recordings of these were also downloaded from the server of the Noticee during on-site inspection. Upon listening to these call recordings on sample basis, it was observed that the tele-callers were providing investment advice to existing/ prospective clients. 5.1.4. It was also observed that the Noticee was paying salary in cash to some of its employees who might also be providing investment advice to existing as well as prospective clients. The Noticee, in its submission dated January 18, 2024 to the inspection team, had admitted that many of his employees were paid salary in cash to keep them out of employee list in order to evade compliance of qualification, experience and certification requirements as prescribed in IA Regulations. It was observed that these tele-callers and the employees were required to comply with qualification and experience requirements as prescribed under IA Regulations, as they were associated with investment advice. A

Adjudication Order in the matter of Rajiv Kumar Singh, Proprietor of Elite Investment Advisory Services Page 4 of 37 shall have a professional qualification or a post-graduate degree or post graduate diploma in the fields and from the institutions, as specified in Regulation 7(1)(a) of the IA Regulations. Further, persons associated with investment advice shall, at all times, have a professional qualification as provided under Regulation 7(1)(a) and an experience of at least two years in activities related to advice in financial products or securities or fund or asset or portfolio management. As per the provisions of Regulation 7(2) of IA Regulations, the IA and persons associated with investment advice shall at all times, have relevant NISM certification specified by the Board from time to time. 5.1.7. Thus, it was alleged that the Noticee has violated the provisions of Regulation 7(1)(a), 7(1)(c), 7(2) and Regulation 15(13) of IA Regulations thereby attracting penalty u/s 15EB of SEBI Act, 1992.

Source: SecMarx — sebi:Order/AK/DS/2025-26/31543. 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.