Skip to main content

Sebi issues Guidelines on Identification of Beneficial Ownership

Guidelines would apply to:-


SEBI Registered Intermediaries:


  • Stock Brokers through Recognized Stock Exchanges
  • Depository Participants (DPs) through Depositories 
  • Mutual Funds (MFs) 
  • Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI) 
  • Portfolio Managers (PMs) 
  • KYC Registration Agencies (KRAs) 
  • Alternate Investment Funds (AIFs) 
  • Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) 
  • Investment Advisers (IAs) 



SEBI Master Circular No. CIR/ISD/AML/3/2010 dated December 31, 2010 has mandated all registered intermediaries to obtain, as part of their Client Due Diligence policy, sufficient information from their clients in order to identify and verify the identity of persons who beneficially own or control the securities account. The beneficial owner has been defined in the circular as the natural person or persons who ultimately own, control or influence a client and/or persons on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted, and includes a person who exercises ultimate effective control over a legal person or arrangement.  

The Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, 2005 also require that every banking company, financial institution and intermediary, as the case may be, shall identify the beneficial owner and take all reasonable steps to verify his identity.

The Government of India in consultation with the regulators has now specified a uniform approach to be followed towards determination of beneficial ownership. Accordingly, the intermediaries shall comply with the following guidelines.

A. For clients other than individuals or trusts: 

4. Where the client is a person other than an individual or trust, viz., company, partnership or unincorporated association/body of individuals, the intermediary shall identify the beneficial owners of the client and take reasonable measures to verify the identity of such persons, through the following information:

a. The identity of the natural person, who, whether acting alone or together, or through one or more juridical person, exercises control through ownership or who ultimately has a controlling ownership interest.

Explanation: Controlling ownership interest means ownership of/entitlement to: 

i. more than 25% of shares or capital or profits of the juridical person, where the juridical person is a company; 
ii. more than 15% of the capital or profits of the juridical person, where the juridical person is a partnership; or 
iii. more than 15% of the property or capital or profits of the juridical person, where the juridical person is an unincorporated association or body of individuals.

b. In cases where there exists doubt under clause 4 (a) above as to whether the person with the controlling ownership interest is the beneficial owner or where no natural person exerts control through ownership interests, the identity of the natural person exercising control over the juridical person through other means. 

Explanation: Control through other means can be exercised through voting rights, agreement, arrangements or in any other manner. 

c. Where no natural person is identified under clauses 4 (a) or 4 (b) above, the identity of the relevant natural person who holds the position of senior managing official.

B. For client which is a trust: 

5. Where the client is a  trust, the intermediary shall identify the beneficial owners of the client and take reasonable measures to verify the identity of such persons, through the identity of the settler of the trust, the trustee, the protector, the beneficiaries with 15% or more interest in the trust and any other natural person exercising ultimate effective control over the trust through a chain of control or ownership.

C. Exemption in case of listed companies: 

6. Where the client or the owner of the controlling interest is a company listed on a stock exchange, or is a majority-owned subsidiary of such a company, 
it is not necessary to identify and verify the identity of any shareholder or beneficial owner of such companies.  

D. Applicability for foreign investors:

7. Intermediaries dealing with foreign investors’ viz., Foreign Institutional Investors, Sub Accounts and Qualified Foreign Investors, may be guided by the clarifications issued vide SEBI  circular CIR/MIRSD/11/2012 dated September 5, 2012, for the purpose of identification of beneficial ownership of the client.

E. Implementation:

8. The provisions of this circular shall come into force with immediate effect. Intermediaries are directed to review their Know Your Client (KYC) and AntiMoney Laundering (AML) policies accordingly.

9. The Stock Exchanges and Depositories are directed to: 

a. bring the provisions of this circular to the notice of the Stock Brokers and Depository Participants, as the case may be, and also disseminate the same on their websites; 
b. make amendments to the relevant bye-laws, rules and regulations for the implementation of the above decision in co-ordination with one another, as considered necessary; 
c. monitor the compliance of this circular through half-yearly internal audits and inspections; and 
d. communicate to SEBI, the status of the implementation of the provisions of this circular. 
  
10. In case of mutual funds, compliance of this circular shall be monitored by the Boards of the Asset Management Companies and the Trustees and in case of other intermediaries, by their Board of Directors.


11. This circular is issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(1) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate the securities markets.

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...