Quick Summary
If a broker traded without my permission is the sentence in your head, your case is not the same as an advisory case, and it does not go through the same door. One client lost 3,18,431 in a broker account. Of that, 1,24,804 was brokerage. The trades were run by the broker’s representatives, withdrawal requests were cancelled, and the client could not regain control of his own login. That case recovered 2,00,000. A separate advisory case recovered 3,00,000 on a 4,22,000 claim, and it turned on something completely different: fees of 2,95,000 against a regulatory cap. Same industry. Different complaint. Different route.
Your money is gone, and you are trying to work out who is actually responsible. The broker who executed the trades, or the advisory that told you to place them.
That question is not academic. Filing against the wrong one costs months.
In one settled case, a client’s account lost 3,18,431, and 1,24,804 of that was brokerage charges alone. That number is not a side detail. It is the whole signature of what happened, and it is what separated his case from every advisory complaint in our files.
Here is how the three types differ and how to tell which one you are dealing with.
Broker Traded Without My Permission: What That Case Looked Like
This client was called by a representative who introduced herself as working for a SEBI-registered broker. She sent profit screenshots from other clients. Convinced by them, he opened a trading account.
He was then handed to a second representative who offered account handling services. He deposited roughly 50,000 in the last week of July 2025.
Trading started. On day one, he lost about 22,000.
When he raised it, his calls went unanswered. The representatives kept giving him specific trades, told him their accuracy was 80 to 90 percent, and kept sending screenshots of other people’s profits.
Trades were executed in his account with no confirmation before or after. When he tried to change his password to take back control, he could not. When he requested a withdrawal, the request was cancelled. Repeatedly.
His total loss was 3,18,431. Brokerage inside that figure: 1,24,804.
The claim was 3,00,000. The recovery was 2,00,000.
Brokerage Churning Complaint: How the Numbers Give It Away
That 1,24,804 figure is the tell.
Brokerage is charged per trade. A high brokerage bill against a modest account means one thing: a very large number of trades happened. More than any normal strategy would produce.
When trade volume runs far ahead of what a client’s account and goals would justify, and the person choosing the trades is the one earning brokerage on them, the incentive is obvious. The trades were not there to make the client money. They were there to generate brokerage.
Work out your own ratio. Pull your contract notes and add up the brokerage. Compare it to your account size and your loss. If brokerage is a large share of either, that is not a market outcome. That is a volume pattern, and it is documented in your own statements.
This is the strongest evidence a broker complaint can have, because it does not depend on anyone’s memory of a phone call. It is arithmetic on records the broker itself produced.
Advisor Charged More Than SEBI Limit: A Different Complaint Entirely
Now, the other case, and it looks nothing like the first.
This client was called in March 2024 by a representative of an investment advisory firm. Demo trade, then a fee of 2,500. The next day, his account showed a profit of about 59,000, which built the trust.
Then the fees escalated. He paid 1,47,500, with a promise of returns between 1 lakh and 9 lakh in a year. Then he was pushed to add 3,00,000 more, and when he refused, he was then persuaded into another 1,47,500 under a new offer.
Total fees: roughly 2,95,000.
In April 2024, his account made about 1,80,000 in profit. The firm took the entire amount as fees.
His net loss was about 2,11,000. The claim was 4,22,000. The recovery was 3,00,000, which is 71.1%.
Here is why that recovery was high. SEBI caps what an investment adviser can charge an individual client under the fee-based model. This client paid roughly 2,95,000, which is materially above it.
That is not a matter of interpretation. It is arithmetic against a published limit. A complaint built on a hard number is worth more than a complaint built on what someone said on a call, and the recovery reflected it.
The cap is one of three fee structures that produced a claim on its own across our files.
If your case turns on what you were charged rather than what you were told, the advisor charged more than the SEBI limit breakdown covers all three with the figures.
Not sure whether your complaint is against the broker or the advisory?
We read your contract notes and your payment records, work out which entity actually did what, and file it through the route that fits.
Register with us for a free consultation.
Broker, Research Analyst or Investment Adviser: How to Tell Which You Have
Three different registrations, three different sets of rules, three different complaints. Most people never learn the difference until they need it.
- A broker executes: They hold your account and place your trades. A broker complaint is about what was done inside your account. Unauthorised trades. Blocked withdrawals. Brokerage that does not match your activity. The evidence is in your contract notes and statements.
- A research analyst publishes research: That is the whole permitted scope. A research analyst’s complaint is about advice that went beyond what the registration allows. Personalised trade instructions with a specific quantity at a specific time are not published research. It is account management.
- An investment adviser advises and owes you a duty of care: An adviser complaint is about suitability, disclosure, and fees. The fee cap sits here and nowhere else, which is why it is often the strongest single point in an adviser’s case.
How to check which you are dealing with: look at the registration number prefix on their material, and search the name on sebi.gov.in. Then look at what they actually did rather than what they called themselves. In two of our files, the firm was registered as a research analyst and was managing accounts, which is the mismatch that made the case.
What Each Route Recovered in Our Files?
The recoveries across these four cases sit closer together than the complaints do.
| Entity type | Claimed | Recovered | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Investment adviser | 4,22,000 | 3,00,000 | 71.1% |
| Stock broker | 3,00,000 | 2,00,000 | 66.7% |
| Research analyst | 3,50,000 | 2,00,000 | 57.1% |
| Research analyst | 8,87,500 | 3,35,000 | 37.7% |
Four cases cannot tell you that one entity type recovers better than another. The sample is too small, and the claims are too different in shape.
What they do show is that all three routes produced a settlement. The route decides the process and the evidence you need, not whether recovery is possible.
The larger driver sits elsewhere. The 37.7% case and the 71.1% case differ mostly in how much of the claim was fees rather than trading loss.
That split explains more of the variation than the entity type does, and the stock advisory refund breakdown works through it case by case.
Filing Against a Broker vs an Advisory: What Changes
The document you lead with changes completely.
- For a broker, the case is built on records the broker generated. Contract notes showing the trades. Statements showing the brokerage. Cancelled withdrawal requests. Login or password change attempts. You are proving what was done to your account, and the broker’s own records prove it.
- For a research analyst or adviser, the case is built on communication. Chat records with the trade instructions. Call recordings with the assurances. Payment records for the fees. You are proving what you were told, which means your evidence is only as good as what you saved.
That difference matters for one practical reason. Broker evidence is safe. It sits with a regulated intermediary who has to keep it. Your phone holds the advisory evidence, but clearing a chat or losing the number can erase it.
If your case is against an advisory, export everything today.
A SEBI SCORES complaint starts the registered route for either type. Where it goes after that depends on the entity and the response, and SMART ODR is the usual next step when a grievance is not resolved.
Conclusion
Work out which entity you are complaining about before you write a word of your complaint.
A broker case is about your account. Unauthorised trades, blocked withdrawals, a brokerage that does not match your activity. The proof is arithmetic on the broker’s own statements, and it is the hardest kind to argue with.
An advisory case is about what you were told and what you were charged. The proof is your chat history, your call recordings, and your payment records. The fee cap, where it applies, is the one hard number in an otherwise argued case.
Filing against the wrong entity does not fail. It just wastes months. Ten minutes with your contract notes and your payment records tells you which one you have.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
Add up the brokerage in your contract notes and compare it to your account size and your total loss. In one of our files brokerage was 1,24,804 inside a 3,18,431 loss. A brokerage figure that large against an account that size points to trade volume, not market movement.
If both were involved, yes, but they are separate complaints with separate evidence. Trying to write one complaint covering both usually weakens each. Establish who did what first.
It is a serious issue and it was one of the core points in our broker case. Your funds are yours. Repeated cancellation without explanation is documented in the platform record, which makes it evidence rather than allegation.
That mismatch is often the strongest point in the case. A research analyst registration permits publishing research. It does not permit running your account. The gap between what they registered as and what they did is the complaint.
The fee cap sits under the investment adviser rules. Research analyst fee rules are structured differently. Which one applies to you depends on the firm's actual registration, which is worth confirming on sebi.gov.in before you build a claim around it.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
