A SEBI-registered research analyst just got caught doing exactly what unregistered tip sellers usually get flagged for. Investowryght Research Analytics Private Limited had a valid registration number and a functioning website. Its WhatsApp chats told a very different story. SEBI’s adjudication order, passed on September 11, 2026, imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty after reading what […]
A fake employment letter to get registered in the first place. A YouTube channel promising fixed daily profits. A research analyst who went completely silent once SEBI came asking questions. That is the pattern behind SEBI’s latest order against Prerna Sharma, and together it adds up to one of the more layered enforcement cases to
A husband already banned from the securities market. A wife’s name on the SEBI licence. A research firm that looked, on paper, completely above board. That is the picture SEBI’s latest order paints of Trade Money Research, and it is exactly why the regulator has now pulled the plug on the firm’s Research Analyst registration.
SEBI’s Adjudicating Officer imposed a ₹30 lakh penalty on OnePaper Research Analysts Private Limited on 16 June 2026, in Adjudication Order No. Order/AK/DS/2026-27/32446. This page exists because that order deserves more room than a summary paragraph in a general firm review. It runs 28 pages, covers an 18-month procedural history, and documents specific evidence, named
Quick Summary: In October 2024, Angel One settled a wide-ranging SEBI proceeding for ₹5.74 crore, the largest single settlement in the broker’s recent regulatory record. The proceeding covered violations under securities contract rules, the stock broker code of conduct, and multiple NSE and BSE circulars. Rather than one specific incident, this order addressed broad, structural
Quick Summary: SEBI’s most recent order against Angel One, dated June 2026, examined whether the broker had adequate systems to detect unauthorised fund collection by its Authorised Persons, along with broader due diligence gaps in AP oversight. Angel One settled the matter for ₹4,28,01,600, without admitting or denying the findings. This page walks through what
Not every SEBI order against a broker ends in a fine. This one closed without a fresh penalty, but the underlying findings are still worth understanding if you are evaluating Angel One’s account-opening history. SEBI Order Against Angel One For Bogus Accounts: What Was Examined The proceeding, conducted under Section 12(3) of the SEBI Act
Listed companies have specific deadlines for telling the market about material events. SEBI’s order found that Angel One had not met those deadlines and settled for ₹34,57,145. Here is what the order covered. SEBI Order Against Angel One Over Disclaimer: What Was Examined Angel One, as a listed company, is subject to SEBI’s Listing Obligations and
Large-client order information carries real market value if it leaks. SEBI’s order examined exactly that risk at Angel One, settled for ₹21,64,500. Here is what it covered. Angel One Front Running SEBI Order: What Was Examined SEBI’s proceedings centred on whether Angel One had failed to exercise the due skill, care, and diligence needed to
Most of Angel One’s recent SEBI orders were resolved by settlement. This one was not. SEBI imposed a ₹6,00,000 penalty after adjudicating the matter directly. Here is what it found. About Angel One Inactive Client SEBI Order: What Was Examined SEBI’s order identified three separate compliance failures, each tied to specific circulars, and proceeded through
Quick Summary: SEBI is reviewing how settlement prices for derivative contracts get calculated after the Closing Auction Session went live in the equity cash segment on August 3, 2026. The review follows a month of stakeholder feedback, including inputs raised on social media, after the CAS closing price began deciding settlement values on expiry day.
A final order finds Debock Industries inflated its books with fake sales, fake preferential shares and forged bank statements to climb onto NSE’s main board, then diverted ₹49 crore of rights issue money. Twenty-nine people and entities were investigated. Eleven were held responsible. How Did This Case Start? Debock Industries Limited began life as Debock
