Quick Summary
Rohit Sinha (name changed) paid a research analyst whose fee kept rising as his trading account grew. Total claim stood at 64,500.
The core violation was a fee structure tied to account balance, which SEBI rules do not permit for research analysts. We filed through SEBI SCORES 2.0 and secured a recovery of 50,000, a 77.5 percent share.
Rohit (name changed) opened a trading account with a small deposit in early 2025. A research analyst reached out through a paid social media campaign and offered a starter package for 8,000.
Within three months, Rohit’s account balance crossed two lakh rupees on paper gains from a few winning trades. The analyst then asked him to upgrade to a higher tier costing 22,000, citing his larger portfolio size as the reason.
This is where the file becomes a violation rather than a sales pitch. A SEBI-registered research analyst may only charge fees that are fixed or slab-based on the service tier. Fees calculated as a percentage of a client’s account balance or assets sit outside the permitted structure.
Over five months, Rohit paid three separate upgrade fees, each justified by his rising balance. His total outlay reached 64,500 before his trades turned unprofitable and the account balance fell sharply.
The analyst never once mentioned that fees should not move with account size. Every renewal message referenced Rohit’s balance directly, calling it fair pricing for a bigger portfolio.
After understanding his case, our team helped him take the right steps, eventually leading to the recovery of ₹50,000.
How Our Team Fought and Presented Legal Arguments
Our team began by mapping every payment against the balance figure quoted at the time. We requested Rohit’s full WhatsApp export and his trading account statements for the entire period.
Step 1: Establish the fee pattern
We listed all four payments in a single timeline and matched each one to a screenshot of the account balance sent by the analyst himself.
Step 2: Cite the specific regulation
We referenced the SEBI research analyst regulations that require fees to follow a disclosed, fixed structure rather than a variable one tied to assets or profits.
Step 3: Draft the legal notice
The notice named the exact clause the analyst breached and attached the balance linked messages as direct evidence, leaving little room for denial.
Step 4: File on SCORES 2.0
We submitted the complaint with a clear chronology, the fee pattern chart, and copies of every invoice Rohit had received.
The analyst’s defense claimed the higher fee reflected a premium tier with more calls per day. We countered that the tier upgrade offer itself was triggered by balance size, not by any service change Rohit had requested.
Successful Recovery of ₹50,000
After SCORES escalation and a follow up grievance review, the analyst agreed to settle. Rohit recovered 50,000 of his 64,500 claim, a 77.5 percent share.
The final settlement closed within eleven weeks of the first complaint being filed. Rohit received the amount directly into his bank account.
Register with us if your advisory fee has been rising with your account balance. We will review your payment trail for free.
Conclusion
Recovering funds from non-compliant advisory practices requires clear evidence and adherence to SEBI guidelines.
Rohit’s case proves that with a structured approach and the right documentation, full or partial recovery is entirely achievable.
Don’t let illegal fee models go unchallenged.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. Fees must follow a fixed or slab structure disclosed at the start. A fee that rises with your account balance or profits breaks the permitted model.
Yes. Payment records, invoices, and chat history showing the fee logic are often enough to build a strong file.
No. Recovery percentage depends on how much of your claim was pure fee against how much was trading loss, which follows a separate rule.
Eleven weeks from the SCORES complaint to the final settlement, which is a typical timeline for a well documented fee dispute.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
