The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has issued an ex-parte interim order barring financial educator and influencer Avadhut Sathe and his entity, Avadhut Sathe Trading Academy Pvt. Ltd., from participating in the securities market and ordered the impounding of ₹546 crore alleged to be unlawful gains. The action, announced in early December 2025, is one of the largest regulatory moves aimed at a so-called “fin-fluencer” and reflects intensifying scrutiny of paid online trading courses and advisory services.

According to SEBI’s interim order, neither Sathe nor his academy was registered as an investment adviser or a research analyst — status required under securities laws when providing tailored investment recommendations or research-based advice to investors. The regulator found that course content and live sessions went beyond generic education and included actionable trading tips and selective disclosures that effectively functioned as unregistered advisory services. SEBI therefore treated the amounts charged to participants as unlawful gains subject to impounding.

SEBI’s findings, as laid out in the order, focus on several points: promotional material highlighting only successful trades, live market sessions where specific buy/sell calls were made, and persistent conduct despite earlier regulatory concern. The order says Sathe personally conducted or supervised sessions that used live market data and that course participants were given trade recommendations during these sessions. The regulator has directed the academy to stop collecting fees from new participants, withdraw promotional content and advertisements, and refrain from providing any kind of market advisory until the matter is finally decided.

Industry reports show the matter follows a build-up of regulatory attention. SEBI had earlier issued administrative warnings to market educators who misrepresent performance or make selective disclosures. In this case, the interim order was issued ex-parte — meaning SEBI acted without waiting for the respondent’s representation — and it also includes a show-cause notice that requires responses before a final determination. Legal and compliance experts say ex-parte impoundments are used when the regulator believes there is a significant risk of dissipation of funds or continued harm to investors.

Media outlets reporting on the case cite the impounded figure at around ₹546 crore, while some publications have reported different amounts or related calculations based on separate examinations. SEBI’s official order remains the primary document for the regulator’s findings, directions and the legal basis for action. Readers and investors should rely on the formal SEBI order and subsequent public filings for definitive facts as the process unfolds.

What this means for retail investors and the broader “finfluencer” ecosystem is significant. Regulators are drawing a clearer line between financial education — which may be permissible without registration — and investment advisory/research services that influence market decisions and thus require registration, disclosures and compliance safeguards. SEBI’s action signals that monetized online courses offering live trading calls or tailored recommendations will increasingly be treated as regulated advisory services. Experts advise retail investors to check registration status, demand clear disclosures of past performance, conflict of interest statements, and to treat flashy testimonials or promotional videos with caution.

Avadhut Sathe, who built a large social media following through trading tutorials and paid mentoring programs, has denied wrongdoing in earlier media interviews and characterized many offerings as educational. As of the interim order, SEBI’s directions bar him and the academy from market participation and impose restraints intended to preserve funds for potential restitution to aggrieved investors. The order also requires the academy to withdraw advertisements and to cease issuing any further advisory recommendations.

Legal analysts say the next steps will likely include a formal response by Sathe and his company to SEBI’s show-cause notice, possible hearings, and then a final order that could confirm, modify or set aside the interim directions. If SEBI’s final adjudication upholds the interim findings, disgorgement, penalties and long-term prohibitions are possible. Separately, affected investors may seek civil remedies, though that will depend on facts established in the regulator’s final order and any parallel court proceedings.

For ordinary investors, SEBI’s action is a reminder of basic checks to undertake before paying for paid trading programs: verify whether the provider is registered as an investment adviser or research analyst when specific trading advice is being given; read terms carefully about refund, risk disclosures and claims; and be cautious of promises of easy or extraordinary returns. Regulators worldwide are increasingly pressing platforms and influencers to meet the same compliance standards as traditional financial advisers when their activities materially affect investor decisions.

SEBI’s interim order in the Avadhut Sathe matter underscores the regulator’s priority of investor protection in the digital age. As the case proceeds, investors and industry participants will watch closely for how the final findings shape the boundaries between financial education, marketing, and regulated advisory services in India’s growing online investment ecosystem.