Quick Summary
SEBI cancelled the Research Analyst registration of Prerna Sharma on September 10, 2026. The regulator found she ran YouTube videos promising fixed daily profits, skipped mandatory disclosures on her algorithm-based recommendations, missed investor complaint deadlines, and had submitted a fake Motilal Oswal experience letter to get registered as an RA in the first place. She never responded to the show cause notice, and SEBI had already fined her ₹15 lakh for the same conduct.
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 come out of the research analyst space recently.
Here is what the order actually found, piece by piece, and what it means if you ever paid for her recommendations.
A Surprise Inspection That Uncovered a Fake Experience Letter
Every SEBI-registered Research Analyst is required to meet a minimum eligibility bar before the regulator hands out a certificate, including at least five years of relevant experience in financial markets.
That requirement exists precisely so investors don’t have to take a stranger’s word for their own competence.
SEBI ran a surprise onsite inspection of Prerna Sharma’s Research Analyst practice from March 20 to 22, 2023, covering the period April 1, 2021 to March 22, 2023.
What it found went well beyond routine paperwork gaps.
To meet that five-year eligibility bar, Prerna Sharma had submitted an experience letter claiming she had worked at Motilal Oswal Financial Services.
During the inspection, she admitted the letter carried a false seal and that she had never actually worked there.
SEBI also noted that her claimed working period at Motilal Oswal overlapped with a period she was simultaneously employed at Bangalore Consultancy Services, which is what first raised suspicion during the inspection.
In other words, the registration she was operating under from day one rested on a document she has since admitted was fabricated.
She Didn’t Even Call Herself a Research Analyst
Every RA is required to use the term “research analyst” in all correspondence with clients, a simple rule meant to make sure investors always know exactly who and what they’re dealing with.
SEBI’s inspection pulled a random sample of emails from Prerna Sharma’s correspondence and found the term missing entirely.
Instead, her emails to clients used the name “PS Invest.”
Her defence was that she had used “Research Analyst” in a later email sent after the inspection period, and that her website carried the term along with her registration number.
SEBI didn’t accept either point, noting that one email sent well outside the inspection window and a screenshot of a website cannot stand in for consistent, ongoing compliance.
How Algologic’s Recommendations Skipped Every Disclosure
Prerna Sharma sent research recommendations to clients through software she called Algologic, built on multiple market indicators and strategies.
SEBI treated this software output as a research report under the RA Regulations, since it counted as an electronic communication meant to guide investment decisions.
The problem was what those recommendations left out. There was no disclosure of conflicts of interest, no disclosure of compensation received, and no definition of the terms used in the recommendations, all of which the RA Regulations require.
Her argument was that the recommendations were sent in plain, layman language that didn’t need any defining.
SEBI’s response was that Regulation 20(1) doesn’t hinge on whether the words are simple; it requires any terms used in making a recommendation to be defined and used consistently, full stop.
She also could not point to any rationale on record for how the Algologic recommendations were actually arrived at, something every RA is required to maintain under Regulation 25(1)(iii), and had never conducted the annual compliance audit required of every registered RA under Regulation 25(3).
The YouTube Videos SEBI Called “Fraud”
Prerna Sharma ran a YouTube channel called Algologic Live, and its video titles are where the case turned serious.
One thumbnail read “Earn Profit Up To 5000/- with Algologic software EQUITY CA,” and another promised, “How to make 5000/- Profit Daily.”
Those two videos alone picked up 707 and 340 views. SEBI held that captions promising a fixed daily return, without any mention of market risk, met the definition of fraud under the PFUTP Regulations, since they were reckless representations designed to influence investor decisions.
The order specifically invoked Regulation 4(2)(k) of the PFUTP Regulations, which covers disseminating misleading information through any media in a reckless or careless manner, alongside Regulation 4(2)(o) on fraudulent inducement and 4(2)(s) on mis-selling.
On top of the PFUTP findings, SEBI held she had also breached the RA Code of Conduct’s honesty and good faith clause, since a registered intermediary is expected to give clients the true picture of a business built entirely on market risk.
Her defence was that the captions were educational and reflected general market trends rather than assured returns.
SEBI rejected this, pointing out that the channel’s own description carried her SEBI registration number, which tied the videos directly to her regulated activity.
She Also Missed Investor Complaint Deadlines
SEBI’s inspection covered five complaints filed against Prerna Sharma through the SCORES portal.
Two of them took far longer than allowed to resolve, one taking 60 days and the other 154 days, against a 30-day window mandated for research analysts under both SEBI’s Intermediaries Regulations and a December 2021 circular addressed specifically to RAs.
She argued the delays were caused by slow responses from the clients themselves.
SEBI did not accept that explanation as a defence, since the regulatory timeline applies regardless of how promptly a client engages with the resolution process.
Why SEBI Proceeded Without Hearing Her Side
Prerna Sharma’s conduct through the proceedings became part of the case against her.
She sought two separate adjournments in February 2026, both citing the need to compile documentation, and then went silent.
SEBI issued a notice of hearing for June 18, 2026, warning that failure to appear would mean the matter proceeds on the material already on record. She neither appeared nor filed any reply.
Citing the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s ruling in Classic Credit Ltd vs SEBI, the Quasi Judicial Authority treated her silence as an admission of the charges laid out in the show cause notice.
The ₹15 Lakh Penalty and a Second Licence Already Gone
This order is not the first time SEBI has come down on Prerna Sharma over this inspection.
An earlier SEBI penalty on research analyst Prerna Sharma had already been issued for the same conduct: an Adjudication Order dated December 30, 2025 that imposed a ₹15 lakh monetary penalty, which SEBI has since recovered by attaching her bank and demat accounts.
Her Investment Adviser registration, held separately under a different SEBI number, was also cancelled on June 11, 2026, after she failed to renew the mandatory NISM certification required to continue holding that licence.
Is Prerna Sharma SEBI Registered or Not?
No. SEBI has cancelled the Research Analyst registration of Ms. Prerna Sharma, SEBI Registration No. INH000006819, with immediate effect from September 10, 2026.
Her separate Investment Adviser registration was already cancelled in June 2026, so she currently holds no active SEBI intermediary registration.
What This Means If You Followed Prerna Sharma’s Recommendations
If you paid for Algologic recommendations or acted on her YouTube videos, you are not alone in reading assured-return claims as a promise rather than a suggestion.
Our detailed breakdown of why can a SEBI registered analyst give profit guarantee explains exactly why that kind of claim is illegal, regardless of who makes it.
Cases like this are becoming more common as SEBI tightens scrutiny on unregistered claims and misleading social media promotions.
If you have an unresolved grievance, you can lodge a complaint in SEBI SCORES against her using her registration number for the record.
Where SCORES does not bring resolution, the SMART ODR complaint portal is built for exactly this kind of dispute.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. SEBI cancelled her RA registration on September 10, 2026, with immediate effect.
No. She sought two adjournments and then filed no reply or appearance, which SEBI treated as an admission of the charges.
She submitted an experience letter claiming she worked at Motilal Oswal Financial Services to meet RA eligibility rules, and later admitted it bore a false seal and that she never worked there.
Captions promising fixed daily profits through her Algologic software were found to be reckless representations likely to mislead investors, which meets the PFUTP Regulations' definition of fraud.
No. Sample correspondence pulled during the inspection showed she used the name "PS Invest" instead, which SEBI held violates the mandatory RA correspondence rule.
No. SEBI found no disclosures on conflicts of interest or compensation, no defined terms, and no rationale on record for how the recommendations were reached.
No. Her Investment Adviser registration was separately cancelled in June 2026 for an NISM certification lapse, so she has no active SEBI licence.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
