Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 SEPTEMBER 2024

Foreign Investment In AIFs

JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Contributor
JSA Advocates & Solicitors

JSA Advocates & Solicitors

Established in 1991 Our services: JSA is a leading law firm in India with more than 600...

View firm profile
Explore more from JSA Advocates & Solicitors

SEBI, vide circular dated January 11, 2024, has revised the Master Circular for AIFs to incorporate the revised thresholds for determining beneficial ownership.

IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
Sidharrth Shankar
Sidharrth Shankar
Vikram Raghani
Vikram Raghani
Lalit Kumar
Lalit Kumar
Nandini Seth
Nandini Seth
Author LinkedIn connections

SEBI, vide circular dated January 11, 2024, has revised the Master Circular for AIFs to incorporate the revised thresholds for determining beneficial ownership. The Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 were amended last year revising the thresholds for determining beneficial ownership from 25% to 10% for companies and from 15% to 10% for trusts. Pursuant to the amendment, the manager of an AIF must ensure, at the time of on-boarding investors, that the investor, or its beneficial owner is not included in the sanctions list notified by the United Nations Security Council (as notified from time to time) and is not a resident in the country identified in the public statement of Financial Action Task Force as:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

See more popular content from

Article

Punjab And Haryana High Court Strikes Down JAO - FAO Retrospective Amendment As Unconstitutional

The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC) in Jyoti Sareen vs. UOI & Others (CWP No. 15791-2024 (O&M)) (Order) held the retrospective amendments carried out vide the Finance Act, 2026, with respect to the powers of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to issue a reopening notice under section 148 (Reopening Notice) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), as unconstitutional, being violative of the ‘doctrine of separation of powers’ and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
Khaitan & Co.
Khaitan & Co.
Article

Acquisition By An FOCC Of An Indian Company: Pricing Conditions For Resident And Non-resident Shareholders

A FOCC refers to an Indian entity that has received foreign investment and is ultimately owned or controlled by persons resident outside India. Although incorporated in India under the Companies Act, such entities are treated differently from domestically owned and controlled Indian companies for the purposes of foreign investment regulation and downstream investment structuring. Consequently, an FOCC, despite being an Indian incorporated entity, is subject to regulatory conditions applicable to foreign investment while undertaking investments into other Indian entities.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
LegaLogic
LegaLogic
Article

The Supreme Court Of India Clarifies: Order II Rule 2 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 Cannot Be A Ground For Rejection Of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(D) Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

A two judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) in S. Valliammai and Ors. vs. S. Ramanathan and Anr. recently held that Order II Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) cannot constitute a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC. The Supreme Court drew a critical distinction between the two provisions clarifying that while Order II Rule 2 curtails the right to sue for certain claims or reliefs, but it does not bar filing of a suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Article

Supreme Court Clarifies That Compromise Decrees Asserting Pre-existing Rights Are Not Subject To Registration Or Payment Of Stamp Duty

In the recent case of Mukesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India adjudicated on the issue of whether compromise decrees that assert pre-existing rights necessitate registration under the Registration Act, 1908 and are subject to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act of 1899.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
Article

Services Sector Employment Rules Take Shape: Model Standing Orders, 2026 Under The Industrial Relations Code, 2020

On May 8, 2026, the Ministry of Labour and Employment notified the Model Standing Orders, 2026 (“Model Standing Orders 2026”) under Section 29(1) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (“IR Code”). The notification supersedes the earlier Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 insofar as they related to model standing orders, and prescribes separate model standing orders for the mining, manufacturing and services sectors.
IndiaEmployment and HR
JSA Advocates & Solicitors
JSA Advocates & Solicitors