sebi:WTM/AB/WRO/WRO/19878/2022-23
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Facts / Headnote
Directions issued against the Noticee vide the Interim Order dated April 30, 2021 confirmed; no modification made pending completion of inspection/examination.
Parties
- Pradeep Chaudhary (Proprietor Profit Guruji)
Holding
SEBI confirmed the interim directions requiring the Noticee to cease acting as an unregistered Investment Adviser, not to divert funds, not to dispose of assets, to withdraw all promotional materials, and not to access the securities market. The Noticee's contentions that his YouTube channel was purely educational and that he received no consideration were rejected.
Full text
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Confirmatory Order in the matter of Pradeep Chaudhary (Proprietor Profit Guruji) Page 1 of 6 WTM/AB/WRO/WRO /19878/2022-23 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA CONFIRMATORY ORDER Under Sections 11(1), 11(4) and 11B(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 In respect of: NOTICEE PAN Pradeep Chaudhary (Proprietor Profit Guruji) ABYPO6213C IN THE MATTER OF UNREGISTERED INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES BY PRADEEP CHAUDHARY (PROPRIETOR PROFIT GURUJI) Background
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Confirmatory Order in the matter of Pradeep Chaudhary (Proprietor Profit Guruji) Page 2 of 6 India Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”), the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013 (“IA Regulations”) and any other Rules or Regulations.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Confirmatory Order in the matter of Pradeep Chaudhary (Proprietor Profit Guruji) Page 3 of 6 entered appearance in person. The summary of the submissions made by the Noticee is given below:- a. It was admitted that the YouTube channel Profit Guruji is run by the Noticee. It was submitted in this regard that the Noticee provides share market and stock trading information on the channel to educate the public at large. b. The Noticee denied that he had ever demanded or got any consideration in lieu of the recommendations made on his YouTube channel. c. It was submitted that it was in fact the complainant who got in touch with the Noticee stating his inclination to start trading in the stock market. The complainant also sought the Noticee’s recommendation regarding a stock broker with whom he could open his account and accordingly the Noticee recommended the name of Astha Broking Company (‘Astha’). d. The complainant, thereafter, opened a trading account with Astha. Pursuant to the same, the complainant also started approaching the Noticee seeking tips for investing in the market. e. It was submitted by the Noticee that he had refused to give any stock specific tips to the complainant and had informed the complainant that he was engaged in running the YouTube channel for educational purposes only. f. The Noticee categorical denied that he had received payments from the complainant. The Noti
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:WTM/AB/WRO/WRO/19878/2022-23. 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.