An AIF application is usually the outcome of months of preparation — strategy discussions, sponsor structuring, tax consultations, investor negotiations, forming the key investment team and multiple rounds of document drafting.
The Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) is drafted. The target investors are identified. The commercial understanding between sponsor and manager is settled. On the surface, the structure appears complete.
In one recent engagement, a fund sponsor approached us after filing their application. The documentation had been prepared internally using standard templates. The strategy was sound and fell within the intended category. However, upon regulatory review by SEBI, several queries were raised.
None of them challenged the viability of the fund.
Individually, each issue appeared minor. Collectively, they resulted in multiple rounds of clarifications and revised submissions.
The experience highlighted an important distinction: being commercially ready to launch a fund is not the same as being regulator-ready.
It is often at this stage — the transition from planning to regulatory scrutiny — that practical challenges in AIF registration begin to surface.
Below are the five most common mistakes that delay AIF applications.
1. Incorrect Category Selection
One of the earliest and most fundamental mistakes is choosing the wrong AIF category. Category selection must logically flow from the investment strategy, leverage provisions and other parameters. However, applicants often approach this decision mechanically rather than analytically.
For instance, some funds select Category II while proposing features that resemble leverage or trading strategies more suited to Category III. Others attempt to structure hybrid strategies that do not clearly fit within a single category.
2. Draft Documents Not Aligned with AIF Regulations
One of the most common pitfalls is inconsistency between the PPM and the regulatory framework under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 and subsequent circulars.
Often, details of PPM do not align with the selected category. Risk factor disclosures may be vague, repetitive, or inadequately tailored to the proposed strategy. Another common issue is the absence of a clearly articulated distribution waterfall that addresses all economic scenarios and investor classes.
SEBI examines alignment carefully. Even minor inconsistencies can trigger multiple rounds of queries. Poor drafting signals lack of regulatory readiness.
3. Non-Disclosure of Disciplinary History
Applications frequently face delays or even risk rejection, due to incomplete disclosure of disciplinary history. The application requires full transparency regarding past regulatory actions involving the sponsor, manager, trustee, directors, or associates.
Common omissions include past notices or orders from the Income Tax Department, ongoing investigations, or historical penalties imposed by regulators. Even matters that have been resolved must be disclosed transparently. Non-disclosure is viewed far more seriously than the underlying issue itself.
4. Governance and Structural Weaknesses
Many applications fail to convincingly demonstrate operational readiness:
- Lack of experienced personnel within the key investment team
- Unclear decision-making hierarchy
- Manager managing PMS without Chinese walls
- Lack of segregation between Sponsor and Manager functions
- Financial soundness of Sponsor / Manager
SEBI evaluates not just documentation but whether the entity is capable of performing its functions.
5. Inadequate Response to SEBI Queries
The registration process is inherently interactive. Receiving a query is not unusual. However, the quality of response often determines whether the process proceeds efficiently or becomes prolonged.
Delayed responses, partial replies, or failure to attach supporting documentation create avoidable setbacks. Each incomplete response invites another round of scrutiny which significantly extends the approval timeline.
—————
Registration under the SEBI AIF framework is more than submitting forms. It is about demonstrating clarity of structure, strategy, governance, and regulatory readiness. Most delays arise from avoidable drafting gaps, inconsistencies, or insufficient articulation of the investment approach.
The key takeaway is simple: prepare thoroughly before you file. With the right structuring and documentation support at the outset, the application process becomes smoother, faster, and far more predictable.
As advisors assisting fund sponsors through the AIF registration process, we believe that strong groundwork at the application stage prevents costly corrections later.
If you are looking to apply for AIF license or have queries regarding the process, you can write to kruti@cskruti.com.