https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464514 AT upheld findings that the appellant and an associated unregistered proprietorship devised a scheme to defraud investors by offering assured, unrealistic returns and providing investment advice without required NISM/IA qualifications. The tribunal found collusion in soliciting client funds, routing payments through the proprietorship, and issuing unsolicited advice, holding these acts violative of Regulation 15(1) of the IA Regulations and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations. The appellant's registration under the IA Act was cancelled as erroneous and the restraint orders and cancellation were sustained. en-us Thu, 27 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Nov 2025 19:39:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464514 AT upheld findings that the appellant and an associated unregistered proprietorship devised a scheme to defraud investors by offering assured, unrealistic returns and providing investment advice without required NISM/IA qualifications. The tribunal found collusion in soliciting client funds, routing payments through the proprietorship, and issuing unsolicited advice, holding these acts violative of Regulation 15(1) of the IA Regulations and Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations. The appellant's registration under the IA Act was cancelled as erroneous and the restraint orders and cancellation were sustained. Case-Laws SEBI Thu, 27 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464514