Investor Protection in India: Why Most Victims of Securities Fraud Receive No Compensation

Investor Protection in India Fails Victims of Securities Fraud – Why Compensation Remains Rare

Investor Protection in India: Rare Relief for Victims of Securities Fraud

If you’ve ever lost your hard-earned money due to securities fraud or market manipulation, you may have hoped for some form of regulatory compensation. Unfortunately, investor protection in India remains more theoretical than practical.

Despite the rising corpus of funds dedicated to investor welfare, actual monetary relief to retail investors remains elusive—often due to legal, procedural, and structural hurdles.

Investor Protection Fund Grows, But Payouts Shrink

The Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF), created under SEBI’s regulations to safeguard investors’ interests, has grown exponentially. As per SEBI’s latest annual report (FY 2023–24), the fund’s corpus more than doubled from ₹240.2 crore in FY23 to over ₹533 crore by March 2024.

Surprisingly, while investor awareness campaigns and educational drives have gone up, actual payouts to investors have dropped sharply—from ₹11.9 crore in FY23 to merely ₹2.8 crore in FY24.

This disconnect between fund size and real-world utility raises a critical question: Is the IPEF truly serving its intended purpose?

Exchanges & Depositories Show Similar Trends

This trend is not limited to SEBI. Stock exchanges and depositories, which maintain their own investor protection funds to cover broker defaults, also reported growing balances:

However, outside of broker insolvency, there is no automatic compensation for victims of securities violations.

Compensation Is Rare, Discretionary, and Burdened by Procedure

Compensation from IEPF requires investors to meet a high threshold of eligibility:

• SEBI must issue a public invitation for claims
• Investors have up to 7 years to apply
• They must prove documented direct loss
• Only “eligible and identifiable” investors are considered
• Final discretion rests solely with SEBI

“In practice, this makes it difficult for many investors to access the fund,” explains Ravi Prakash, securities lawyer at Corporate Professionals. “While the law permits restitution, procedural delays and evidentiary burdens make actual compensation a rare occurrence.”

SEBI’s Powers: Regulatory, Not Compensatory

Former SEBI officer and founder of Regstreet Law, Sumit Agrawal, notes that SEBI does not consider itself a body empowered to adjudicate claims or distribute restitution.

“SEBI believes it lacks the legal authority to verify and compensate affected investors. It is not a ‘Court’ as defined under law,” Agrawal points out.

Thus, unless a court or special committee intervenes, investor restitution remains mostly symbolic.

Past Exceptions: Panchal IPO Scam & Sahara Refunds

There have been rare instances where direct compensation was achieved:

🧾 Roopalben Panchal IPO Scam (2003–2005)

• Over 14,000 fake demat accounts used to corner shares in major IPOs
• SEBI identified 1.2 million investors
• Distributed ₹23 crore by 2010
• Yet, some funds remained unclaimed

🧾 Sahara Refund Case

• Supreme Court-led refund mechanism
• ₹2,025.75 crore disbursed via CRCS-Sahara Refund Portal
• Total ₹5,000 crore transferred for the same
• Compensation reached only a fraction of affected depositors

🧾 Hindustan Unilever-Brook Bond MF Insider Case

• Victims still await restitution
• Case has been under litigation for over 20 years

Challenges in Proving Losses Post-Fraud

“How can you identify individual victims after 3-4 years, by the time SEBI finishes the investigation?” asks Abhiraj Arora, Partner at Saraf & Partners.

Especially in market-wide frauds, establishing clear causality and calculating investor-specific losses is a herculean task. In such cases, the funds are redirected not to victims, but to the Investor Protection Fund or Consolidated Fund of India.

Case Study: Jane Street Group & ₹36,500 Crore Derivatives Manipulation

On 3 July 2025, SEBI barred Jane Street Group, a US-based quant trading firm, from Indian markets for manipulating the Nifty and Bank Nifty indices.

• Accused of rigging expiry-day index pricing
• Net profit allegedly over ₹36,500 crore
• ₹4,840 crore impounded by SEBI
• Retail investors lost over ₹1.05 lakh crore in FY25 derivatives trading

And yet, no restitution mechanism exists to compensate the affected retail traders. The seized funds may go to IEPF or Consolidated Fund, but are unlikely to reach individual victims.

Time for a Reform: A Dedicated Restitution Mechanism

Experts are now advocating for a US-style framework similar to the SEC’s Fair Fund, which allows disgorged money to be redistributed transparently among victims.

“The Finance Ministry and SEBI should consider statutory changes to introduce a restitution fund backed by legal mandates,” said Agrawal.

🔁 Proposed Reforms:

📌 Conclusion: Is Investor Protection in India Just a Formality?

While investor protection in India appears robust on paper, actual experiences of retail investors paint a different picture. With rising cases of market manipulation and long-drawn litigation, victims are left navigating a system that’s designed to educate—but not necessarily to compensate.

Unless there are legislative reforms and structural enhancements, compensation will remain the exception rather than the rule.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or investment advice. Readers are encouraged to consult with qualified legal and compliance professionals before acting on any information provided herein. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, Estabizz Fintech Pvt. Ltd. does not assume responsibility for any errors or omissions. For official guidance, refer to SEBI, IEPF Authority, or relevant statutory bodies.

Lost track of mutual fund units? Sebi moots MITRA to help investors reclaim inactive MF folios

SEBI Credit Rating Agencies Amendment 2025 SEBI Empowers CRAs as Past Risk & Return Verification Agencies – 2025 Update