Investor Protection Fund claims fail where assured-return payments under derivatives advisory services are unsupported by contract notes.

Claims for compensation from the Investor Protection Fund were found inadmissible where broker records and a forensic audit showed that the claimants had received assured returns under Derivatives Advisory Services. The contract notes produced by the claimants did not correlate with the payments reflected in the disputed orders and did not explain the credited amounts as ordinary exchange-traded payouts. As the claimants did not deny receipt of the amounts and failed to link them to valid contract notes, the receipts were treated as consistent with an impermissible assured-return scheme. Rejection of compensation was therefore upheld because such DAS arrangements were contrary to the governing exchange rules and bye-laws.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' claims for compensation from the Investor Protection Fund were admissible when the broker's records and the forensic audit indicated that the appellants had received assured returns under Derivatives Advisory Services, and whether the contract notes produced by the appellants displaced that finding.

Analysis: The contract notes relied upon by the appellants did not explain or correlate with the payments reflected in the impugned orders. The record showed that the amounts credited to the appellants were not shown to be payouts from ordinary exchange trades, but were consistent with assured returns under a scheme described as DAS. The appellants did not deny receipt of those amounts and did not produce contract notes linking those receipts to the impugned payments. Since offering assured returns through DAS was contrary to the governing exchange rules and bye-laws, the claims could not be treated as eligible claims under the Investor Protection Fund mechanism.

Conclusion: The claims were inadmissible and the rejection of compensation was upheld.

---