Quick Summary
Om Prakash (name changed) paid 55,000 to a firm that turned out to hold no SEBI registration at all, spread across several small packages under different names. His claim reached 1,00,000. Scattered payments across multiple scheme names made the relationship look smaller than it actually was until the total was added up. Our team recovered 41,600, a 41.6 percent share.
Om Prakash was contacted by a small advisory operation in early 2025 offering a starter package for a modest fee, positioned as a low-commitment way to try their trading calls.
Over the following two months, he was moved through a series of small upgrades, each with its own package name, Starter Plus, Weekly Pro, Momentum Access, each priced individually rather than as part of one visible relationship.
His combined payments across all of these packages reached 55,000, though no single payment on its own looked large enough to raise concern at the time it was made.
When he later checked the firm’s credentials, it held no SEBI registration under any category. It had never been permitted to charge for investment advice in any form, regardless of how the packages were named or priced.
Offering paid trading calls without registration is the core violation here, and the scattered package structure appears to have made the true scale of the relationship harder to notice from the inside.
How Fraud Free Framed the Case and Legal Strategy?
We began by collecting every individual package payment Om Prakash had made, since no single record on its own captured the full relationship.
Step 1: Combine the scattered package payments
We added together all package payments across the two months, establishing the true combined total of 55,000 paid to a single underlying operation.
Step 2: Confirm the unregistered status
We searched the firm’s name and any contact details on the SEBI registry, confirming no registration existed under any category.
Step 3: Frame the case around the combined total
We argued that scattered package names do not divide one client relationship into several smaller ones for the purpose of assessing what was charged.
Step 4: File with the combined payment history
Our complaint centred on the combined 55,000 total, supported by the confirmed absence of any SEBI registration for the firm collecting it.
The firm argued each package was a separate, standalone service with its own limited scope. We countered that the same client, the same contact, and the same underlying team meant the packages formed one continuous relationship.
The Final Outcome and How Fraud Free Secured the Recovery?
With the combined total established and the unregistered status confirmed, the matter settled. Om Prakash recovered 41,600 of his 1,00,000 claim, a 41.6 percent share.
The recovery sat close to his total fees paid, consistent with how fee heavy claims against unregistered firms tend to resolve.
Register with us if you paid an unregistered firm through several small packages. We will total the payments for free.
Conclusion
A relationship split across several small packages can look harmless one payment at a time. Added together, the picture often looks very different.
If you have paid multiple small packages to the same firm or contact, total them before assuming the relationship was ever really that small.
Alongside SCORES, our team raises general complaints against SEBI intermediaries for unregistered operations, and escalates through SMART ODR portal when a firm does not respond.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
Smaller, scattered payments are less likely to raise concern individually, both for the client paying and for anyone reviewing the relationship later.
Not if the same firm or team was behind all of them. What matters is the underlying relationship, not the label attached to each payment.
Search the firm's name and any contact number or website directly on the SEBI registry. Absence from that registry is a documentable fact on its own.
The claim itself was built primarily around the fee total, and unregistered fee based claims tend to settle close to what was actually paid.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
