Consider a situation where a high-net-worth client approaches an Authorized Person (AP) and attempts to hand over a cheque made out in the AP’s name to settle their trading margin requirements. From the perspective of a seasoned operations professional, this is an immediate red flag that necessitates an intervention to prevent a serious regulatory breach. Under the SEBI-mandated framework, the AP acts as a facilitator for the broker but possesses no authority to handle client funds or securities.
Accepting payments in any form—whether cash, cheque, or direct bank transfer—directly into the AP’s personal or office account creates a massive operational risk of commingling and potential misappropriation.
In the Indian capital market, the flow of money is strictly regulated to ensure that funds move directly from the client’s designated bank account to the stock broker’s Nodal Bank Account, or via approved digital payment gateways integrated with the trading platform. When an AP steps outside these boundaries, they not only compromise their own registration status but also expose the main trading member to severe disciplinary action by the stock exchanges.
Think of the AP’s role as that of a bridge for client acquisition and servicing, never as a custodian of capital. Every rupee of client money must maintain a transparent, electronic audit trail that leads directly back to the investor’s verified bank account and the broker’s clearing pool.
From a risk management standpoint, allowing an AP to handle funds is akin to bypassing the fundamental internal controls that maintain market integrity. If a client expects a credit in their trading ledger but the funds are held up in an unauthorized intermediary’s account, the firm is blind to that liquidity, leading to potential margin shortfalls and forced square-offs in the terminal.
Even in a minor scenario where an AP offers to ‘help’ by paying a margin call on a client’s behalf, the practice is forbidden. It muddies the client’s financial ledger, makes reconciliation nearly impossible, and invites the attention of exchange auditors looking for patterns of unauthorized deposit taking or informal credit arrangements.
Operations teams must therefore treat the prohibition of fund handling by APs as a non-negotiable rule. The moment an authorized person takes possession of client money, the firm loses control over the settlement process. Whether the amount is a few thousand rupees or a significant margin deposit, the requirement remains consistent: client funds must travel through established, verifiable channels.
Remember that in your professional capacity, you are not just checking trade logs; you are guarding the integrity of the firm’s clearing cycle, and any deviation from these controls is a failure of your duty to both the regulator and the investor.
Nuance
Check Your Understanding
A client tells their Authorized Person that they are unable to access their net banking and asks the AP to pay the outstanding margin of INR 50,000 from the AP’s personal account. What should the AP do?
Under SEBI regulations, which of the following best describes the mandate for an Authorized Person regarding client funds?
This is a companion read for Section 6.3 — SETTLEMENT OF FUNDS from PASS Securities Operations and Risk Management Examination by Akhilesh Gururani, available on Amazon Kindle.
Copyright © 2026 `Akhilesh Gururani. All rights reserved.