Quick Summary
SEBI cancelled the Research Analyst registration of Priyanka Yadav, proprietor of Trade Money Research, on September 10, 2026. The regulator found her husband Sandeep Yadav, already debarred from the securities market, was actually running the firm while she held the licence on paper. SEBI also found she failed to disclose his role to clients and missed her annual compliance audit.
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.
Here is what the order actually reveals, and what it means if you ever trusted this firm with your trades.
What SEBI’s Inspection Uncovered at Trade Money Research
Every SEBI-registered Research Analyst is supposed to be exactly what the certificate says, a person or entity that SEBI has personally vetted for integrity, competence, and a clean regulatory history.
That vetting is the entire reason investors are told to check for an RA registration number before trusting anyone with market recommendations.
Trade Money Research held that registration since December 1, 2022. What SEBI’s inspection found is that the person the regulator had vetted was not, in practice, the person running the business.
SEBI and BSE ran a joint onsite inspection of Trade Money Research on October 8 and 9, 2024, covering the firm’s offices in Nagpur, Maharashtra and Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
The inspection led to enquiry proceedings, a Designated Authority’s report dated January 09, 2026, and finally a show cause notice. The core finding was straightforward but serious.
The person actually running Trade Money Research was not Priyanka Yadav, the registered proprietor, but her husband Sandeep Yadav, someone SEBI had already barred from the securities market.
That single fact drove almost every other violation SEBI recorded against the firm, from the fit and proper breach to the disclosure failure described below.
How Sandeep Yadav Ended Up Running His Wife’s RA Firm
Sandeep Yadav was the proprietor of Capital Vista, an unregistered investment advisory outfit. SEBI issued him a show cause notice in that matter on July 9, 2021, and eventually debarred him from the securities market for two years on January 30, 2023.
Priyanka Yadav obtained the RA registration for Trade Money Research on December 1, 2022. That is after the show cause notice against her husband was already issued, and before his final debarment order came through. SEBI read that timing as deliberate.
During the inspection, the lessor of the Nagpur office gave a written statement dated October 8, 2024, saying the business was being run by Priyanka Yadav along with her husband.
At the Indore office that same day, Sandeep Yadav himself confirmed it, both by email and in a separately signed statement.
His own words left little room for interpretation. He wrote that he was running the operation of Trade Money Research at the Indore address, and that his wife was the proprietor of Trade Money Research just on paper.
He also explained why the licence was in her name at all. He said he took the registration from the Nagpur address in his wife’s name because obtaining one himself was difficult, given the SCN he had already received in the Capital Vista matter.
Why SEBI Rejected the “We Are Separate Legal Persons” Defence
Priyanka Yadav’s reply leaned heavily on the idea that she and her husband are independent legal persons, each with a separate PAN and separate regulatory standing. She argued the lessor’s statement was hearsay, that no bank records or client communications proved her husband’s control, and that marriage does not merge legal identity.
SEBI did not accept this. The order notes that Sandeep Yadav’s signed admission was never disputed, and that Priyanka Yadav never sought to cross-examine him or the lessor whose statements formed the basis of the findings.
The Quasi Judicial Authority was direct about why the marital relationship itself was beside the point.
The issue was not that Sandeep Yadav is her husband, but that a person debarred by SEBI was controlling a registered intermediary through her name.
SEBI also cited the Securities Appellate Tribunal’s 2006 ruling in Jermyn Capital LLC vs SEBI, which held that one bad element in the securities market can pollute it entirely, and that the regulator is justified in keeping such elements out rather than risk that damage to investors.
Under Schedule II of the SEBI Intermediaries Regulations, “fit and proper” is judged on integrity, honesty, ethical behaviour, reputation, fairness, and character, not on whether the paperwork technically checks out.
SEBI held that Trade Money Research’s association with a person debarred for running an unregistered advisory business, concealed at the time of registration, failed that test outright.
Clients Were Never Told Who Was Really Behind the Advice
There was a second, quieter violation buried inside the same set of facts.
Under Regulation 19 of the RA Regulations, a research analyst has to disclose material information about itself, including the disciplinary history of anyone connected to the business, so that clients can make an informed call before paying for a subscription.
SEBI’s order treats Sandeep Yadav as an associate of the firm once it established he was running the operations, since the definition of associate under the Intermediaries Regulations covers anyone who controls an intermediary, directly or indirectly, including a relative where the intermediary is an individual.
That meant his debarment was exactly the kind of disciplinary history Regulation 19 requires a firm to disclose.
Trade Money Research never told clients any of this. Investors paying for research calls had no way of knowing the person shaping those calls was someone SEBI had already barred from the market.
The Annual Audit That Never Happened On Time
Every registered research analyst must undergo an annual compliance audit by a member of ICAI or ICSI and submit the report to SEBI.
Trade Money Research eventually produced an audit report for FY 2023-24, but only after the inspection had already flagged the gap, and the report itself did not even mention when the auditor was appointed.
SEBI’s view was blunt. A regulation that does not name an exact deadline still cannot be read as permitting indefinite delay, and submitting an audit more than two years late defeats the entire purpose of the requirement, which is to let SEBI keep track of an intermediary’s functioning on an ongoing basis.
The ₹10 Lakh Penalty That Already Preceded This Order
This is not the first SEBI action to come out of the same inspection. On July 29, 2025, SEBI order against Trade Money Research had already restrained Priyanka Yadav from the securities market for two years, imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty under Section 15EB of the SEBI Act, and directed her to refund proportionate fees to clients for the unexpired part of their contracts.
That earlier order came with real teeth.
It required Trade Money Research to email every client with refund details, publish a public notice in two national newspapers, and file a completion report certified by a peer-reviewed Chartered Accountant confirming every entitled client had actually been paid.
She paid the ₹10 lakh, though she argued the payment should not be read as an admission of the violations. SEBI’s view in this latest order is that since she never challenged that earlier order before any forum, its findings stand as conclusive.
Our earlier coverage of the SEBI order against Trade Money Research walks through that first round of action in detail, including the refund and public notice directions.
There is a separate thread involving Sandeep Yadav that is still unresolved. SEBI’s January 2023 debarment order against him in the Capital Vista matter also required refunds to investors. He has not complied, and SEBI has initiated recovery proceedings against him for ₹1,01,65,000 through Recovery Certificate No. 7554 of 2024, which remains pending.
What SEBI Did Not Hold Against Trade Money Research
Not every allegation in the show cause notice was found established. The change of office address from Nagpur to Indore had actually been intimated to SEBI’s Indore Local Office, so that specific charge did not stick.
SEBI also gave Trade Money Research the benefit of the doubt on the grievance mechanism allegation. Priyanka Yadav submitted photographs showing the SEBI registration certificate and grievance redressal details were displayed at the office premises, and the regulator found nothing on record to contradict that.
Is Trade Money Research SEBI Registered or Not?
No. SEBI has cancelled the Research Analyst registration of Ms. Priyanka Yadav, Proprietor of Trade Money Research, SEBI Registration No. INH000010991, with immediate effect from September 10, 2026. The firm is no longer authorised to offer research analyst services in any form.
What This Means If You Took Advice From Trade Money Research
If you paid for a subscription or research service from Trade Money Research, the July 2025 order already directed refunds for any unexpired portion of your contract.
If that refund never reached you, or if you have a separate grievance against the firm, you can raise it directly.
You can lodge a complaint in SCORES against the firm using its registration number.
If SCORES does not resolve your grievance, the SMART ODR complaint portal is the next step for a structured, regulator-backed resolution.
Given that this firm’s licence is now cancelled, it is worth learning how to check SEBI registered research analyst status before you engage anyone else claiming to hold an active registration.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. SEBI cancelled its Research Analyst registration on September 10, 2026, with immediate effect.
He is Priyanka Yadav's husband, already debarred by SEBI in a separate matter, and SEBI found he was actually running Trade Money Research's operations.
The order does not use the word fraud. It found violations of fit and proper criteria, non-disclosure, and audit lapses.
She paid ₹10 lakh under an earlier SEBI order dated July 29, 2025, arising from the same inspection.
No. SEBI found the address change from Nagpur to Indore had been properly intimated.
The July 2025 order already directed refunds of unexpired subscription fees. Investors who haven't received theirs can escalate through SCORES.
Trade Money Research can no longer legally offer research analyst services, and any ongoing subscriptions should be treated as terminated.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
