HomeNewsBusinessSebi has issued 2,220 administrative warnings to foreign funds in last 2 years

Sebi has issued 2,220 administrative warnings to foreign funds in last 2 years

These warnings came after an August 2023 circular in which Sebi tightened beneficial ownership norms

September 18, 2025 / 17:26 IST
Story continues below Advertisement
n
Through a circular issued on August 24,2023, Sebi had also forced some of offshore funds with concentrated India portfolio to disclose granular details of their beneficial owners.

India’s market regulator, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), has issued more than 2,200 administrative warnings to foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) over the past two years, marking a significant shift toward stricter oversight. This proactive approach follows a period of no such warnings between FY2019 and FY2023.

These warnings have proliferated in the wake of the 2023 Hindenburg report, which prompted Sebi to ramp up its monitoring of foreign funds and tighten beneficial ownership rules. Through a circular issued on August 24,2023, Sebi had also forced some of offshore funds with concentrated India portfolio to disclose granular details of their beneficial owners.

Story continues below Advertisement

A warning letter is a formal administrative notice issued by Sebi to market entities and listed companies pointing out non-compliance with rules or the need to improve internal controls. Unlike an adjudication order issued by Sebi, which is quasi-judicial in nature and imposes penalties or restrictions, a warning letter doesn’t impose any cost. But if the violation continues despite the warning, Sebi can always institute a probe, say legal experts.

Post Hindenburg, Sebi conducted an extensive analysis of FPI data and during the exercise it found several funds had committed minor infractions including non-submission of full beneficial ownership data as required in the erstwhile FPI regime. “Several funds nominated their investment manager or lawyer as beneficial owners and did not submit details of the owners who were exercising actual control,” said a person cited above.  “Besides, there were also certain deficiencies found like not submitting appropriate Apostille  and few funds did not submit on time details as required by the August 24 circular.”