Yogesh was contacted over WhatsApp by an individual promising profitable stock market advice, who pushed him toward opening a demat account with a major broker. Despite his initial hesitation and refusal, the individual and an associate went ahead and opened the account in his name regardless. An account opened over the objection of the person […]
Naveen was contacted repeatedly by representatives of a firm registered with SEBI as a Research Analyst, who eventually pressured him into attending a demo session. There, he was shown screenshots of other clients’ alleged profits and promised a specific daily profit figure of ten thousand rupees. Convinced by the demo, he paid a registration fee
Deepesh received a call from a representative of a firm registered with SEBI as a Research Analyst, who shared the firm’s registration number early in the conversation specifically to establish credibility. The pitch came with a precise figure attached: fifteen thousand rupees in daily profit if he subscribed to the premium plan. He declined initially.
Karan had no trading experience and had been persuaded, after repeated calls, to open a demat account with a large brokerage. He was assured the firm’s own team would handle his trading, and he was connected with a relationship manager entrusted to operate his account directly. That relationship manager began using margin facilities to take
Pranav’s advisory relationship with a firm registered as a Research Analyst rested on a basic misrepresentation early on. He was told the markets operated twenty-four hours a day, a claim used to justify constant engagement and near-continuous trading pressure. This was not a minor exaggeration. Markets operate within defined hours, and a claim suggesting otherwise
Bhaskar was introduced to a broker through a friend and opened a demat account with an initial deposit of ₹3,00,000. At the time of opening, he was assured a fixed monthly return of three percent, an annualised figure well beyond anything a genuine market-linked return could reliably promise. He paid ₹5,000 in account management fees,
Gouranga was contacted by a representative of a firm registered with SEBI as an Investment Adviser, who described the company as an established, SEBI-approved player in financial advisory. A demo trade showing a small profit followed shortly after. He paid ₹3,000 as an initial registration fee. No disclosure document, no signed agreement, no risk profiling
This isn’t a case we’re reporting on after the fact. Aseem Juneja appeared as Rahul Bagrecha’s Authorized Representative throughout this arbitration, from the oral hearing on 10 August 2026 through to the final award on 14 August 2026. The dispute moved through SEBI’s SMART ODR framework after conciliation failed, and was registered as Case ID
Supriya was approached by individuals presenting themselves as investment experts, who directed her to a platform they described as secure and capable of exceptionally high, guaranteed returns. Small profits appeared early on her account dashboard, exactly the kind of result that made increasing her investment feel like a reasonable next step. Trusting these early figures,
Gregory was drawn into a paid premium tip group run by a firm registered with SEBI as a Research Analyst. The pitch leaned entirely on screenshots showing past profits earned by other subscribers. Convinced by those numbers, he paid a total of ₹40,500 across his time with the group. What he received in return looked
Waseem had placed a Good Till Triggered sell order on his shares in a mid cap company, setting a trigger price of ninety five rupees, well above where the stock was actually trading. The order carried a validity stretching into early 2026. On one particular day, without the trigger condition ever being met, the platform
Unlike many cases built on fabricated screenshots, Irfan’s adviser actually delivered early wins. A small initial investment returned a genuine profit of ₹2,500, and later trades brought in returns totalling close to ₹95,000, including a single trade worth ₹60,000. Those real numbers did the persuading. Irfan paid a total of ₹55,200 across three separate charges,
