How FraudFree Team Helped Recover 93% After an Advisory Team Vanished?

Sunita had been working with an advisory firm for several months, following recommended positions and adjusting them based on regular calls from her assigned adviser.

In the middle of a set of open positions, the calls stopped. Her adviser did not answer, the office number went unreachable, and no one from the firm responded to her messages for over two weeks.

During that gap, several of her open positions moved sharply against her, with no guidance available on whether to hold, exit, or adjust. By the time she managed to reach anyone, the damage to her portfolio was already done.

A SEBI registered investment adviser who takes on an active advisory relationship carries an ongoing obligation to that client, not just at the point of sale.

Disappearing mid-engagement, while a client holds open positions built on the firm’s own recommendations, is a failure of that obligation.

This case did not turn on any single fee payment. It turned on the abandonment itself, and the losses that followed directly from it.

How Our FraudFree Team Built the Strategy & Legal Case?

We started by establishing the exact date the communication stopped, since everything before that point was a normal advisory relationship and everything after was abandonment.

Step 1: Pin down the disappearance date

We identified the last successful call and the first unanswered message, marking a clear before-and-after line in the relationship.

Step 2: Track the portfolio during the gap

We charted how Sunita’s open positions moved during the two-week silence, showing the loss that accumulated while no guidance was available.

Step 3: Frame the ongoing duty argument

We argued that an active advisory relationship carries a continuing responsibility, and that abandoning a client mid-position is a failure distinct from any single transaction dispute.

Step 4: File with the communication gap as the core evidence

Our complaint through the SEBI SCORES portal centred on the dated gap in communication, tied directly to the losses that occurred during it.

The firm eventually resurfaced and claimed an internal staffing issue had caused the delay. We argued that an internal staffing problem does not remove the firm’s obligation to a client holding open, advisor-recommended positions.

How Our Team Recovered 93% of the Advisory Losses?

Facing a clearly dated abandonment period tied to documented losses, the firm agreed to settle. Sunita recovered ₹1,50,000 of her ₹1,60,000 claim, a 93.75 percent share.

The case resolved without the dispute ever turning into an argument about whether any individual recommendation had been appropriate.

Register with us if your advisory team went silent while you held open positions. We will review the timeline for free.

Conclusion

An advisory relationship does not end the moment a fee is paid. It continues for as long as a client holds positions built on that advice.

If your adviser has gone silent while you hold open positions, mark the exact date communication stopped. That single date can become the spine of your entire complaint.

Where a firm resurfaces only after a complaint is filed, our team escalates through the SMART ODR portal to keep pressure on an unresolved file.

---

Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.

---

 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Does an advisory firm going silent count as a violation on its own?

Silence alone is a service failure. It becomes a stronger complaint when it coincides with open positions that moved against you during the gap.

2. What if my adviser eventually responded, just very late?

A late response does not erase the gap. Document the dates of the silence and any losses that occurred during that specific window.

3. Do I need proof the losses were caused by the silence rather than the market?

You need to show the positions were open and advisor-recommended during the gap, and that no guidance was available while they moved. Our team helps build that connection.

4. Why was there no separate fee dispute in this case?

Sunita's claim centred entirely on losses from unmanaged positions rather than a disputed payment, which is why the case turned on abandonment rather than billing.