The Square-Off That Followed a Shared OTP
On 12 March, Neha, a salaried investor, finds that 700 of her 1,000 shares in a small-cap company have been sold from her demat account, and that Rs 18,400 has been debited in her trading ledger. She never placed the order and was out of the country that week. Her broker, Sigma, says the sale was a risk-management square-off because her account showed a margin shortfall of Rs 61,000 after she took a position in single-stock futures on 9 March. Neha says she has never traded futures; she did, however, receive an OTP on 9 March and read it out to a caller who claimed to be from Sigma's helpdesk. Sigma produces a contract note dated 9 March for a futures trade in her name but no order confirmation, and admits the futures position was squared off on 10 March at a loss. Her DP statement shows 700 shares debited against Sigma's pool account on 13 March. Her POA with Sigma dates from 2019.
1. What records establish whether the futures trade and the square-off were authorised, and who must produce them?
Read the worked answer
This is an evidence question before it is a legal one. The following records are decisive:
With the broker (Sigma), which must produce them on request:
- The order log and trade log with timestamps, the user ID, the IP address and the device from which the 9 March futures order was placed.
- The contract note for the futures trade - required to be issued within the prescribed time of execution - together with the exchange trade number, so the trade can be matched to the exchange's own records.
- The margin statement and the risk-management notices: a square-off for a margin shortfall normally requires a documented margin call and a disclosed RMS policy, and the timing of the notice matters.
- The OTP delivery log from Sigma's system, showing to which registered mobile number and email the OTP was sent.
With the depository/DP: the transaction statement with the 13 March debit, the POA on record, and the delivery instruction or instruction reference underlying the debit.
With the exchange: the trade confirmation for 9 March under her client code, which independent verification can confirm.
The critical finding is usually the OTP: if it was sent to her registered number and used from an unknown device, the trade was not authorised by her, though her sharing of the OTP is contributory negligence. If the OTP logs show a different number, or the order came from an IP never associated with her, Sigma's systems were compromised or an employee/partner acted improperly.
2. Was Sigma entitled to sell her shares on 13 March? Under what conditions may a broker square off client securities, and what would make this sale wrongful?
Read the worked answer
A broker may sell a client's securities only to recover that client's own obligations - an unpaid pay-in, a margin shortfall on a position the client actually holds, or brokerage and charges due - and only in accordance with the RMS policy disclosed to the client, the member-client agreement, and the POA or a signed delivery instruction. The sale proceeds must be applied to that obligation.
What makes this sale wrongful or at least challengeable:
- No authorised position. If the 9 March futures trade was not placed by Neha, there was no genuine margin obligation of hers to recover; the shortfall arose from a fraudulent trade. A broker cannot cure a fraud by selling the victim's assets.
- No notice. Square-off for margin shortfall normally follows a documented margin call with a stipulated cure period. A silent debit two days later, with no email or SMS trail, is a procedural failure.
- POA scope. A 2019 POA authorises debits for settlement and margin obligations; it does not authorise sales to cover a disputed, unauthorised position.
- Proportionality. Selling exactly the shortfall amount is defensible; selling more, or selling assets unrelated to the segment, is not.
Her sharing of the OTP is serious contributory negligence and may reduce what she recovers, but it does not transfer ownership of her shares to the broker. The sale, not her carelessness, is the act that needs justification.
3. Set out Neha's escalation path and explain what each forum can and cannot do.
Read the worked answer
1. Sigma's own grievance redressal. A written complaint to the compliance officer, with a demand for the order logs, contract note, margin statements and the OTP log. Keep proof of despatch; a dated paper trail is essential later.
2. SEBI SCORES. If Sigma does not respond within the prescribed period, escalate on SEBI's complaint portal. SCORES routes the complaint to the intermediary and monitors the response; it is a facilitation mechanism, not an adjudicating body, and cannot award compensation by itself.
3. Exchange investor grievance and arbitration. The relevant stock exchange's investor grievance cell handles member-client disputes, and the arbitration mechanism can decide the money claim. This is where a finding on authorisation and compensation would be made.
4. Cyber-crime and police complaint. The OTP call is a fraud. A police/cyber complaint creates an independent record and may help freeze the beneficiary account; it runs parallel to the securities route.
5. Depository. The DP can confirm the POA and the instruction on record and, if the debit lacked a valid instruction, fix responsibility on that side.
What none of these forums will do is restore the shares or guarantee the original price. Realistic relief is monetary. She should also immediately reset credentials, revoke or re-scope the POA, and register a fresh mobile number and email if either was compromised.