SEBI

SEBI cautions public regarding dealing in ‘Digital Gold’ or ‘E-Gold’

SEBI Has issued a Press Release cautioning on dealing in Digital Gold.

Digital Gold or E-Gold refers to electronic investment products that allow investors to buy, sell, and hold gold digitally without physically possessing it. Such Digital Gold is claimed to backed by real, physical gold stored securely in vaults by trusted custodians. In India, there are several entities offering Digital Gold / E-Gold products i.e. (i) MMTC‑PAMP India Pvt. Ltd. a joint venture between MMTC Ltd. (a government undertaking) and Swiss firm PAMP SA, (ii) Digital Gold India Pvt. Ltd. (brand: SafeGold), (iii) Augmont Goldtech Pvt. Ltd., (iv) Jewellery brands: e.g., Tanishq’s “Gold+” digital gold plan via SafeGold etc.

SEBI has stated that it has come to its notice that some digital/online platforms are offering investors to invest in ‘Digital Gold/E-Gold Products’. Digital Gold is being marketed as an alternative for investment in physical gold.

SEBI has clarified that it had enabled investments in gold and gold related instruments through various SEBI regulated gold products. These are exchange traded commodity derivative contracts, Gold Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) offered by Mutual Funds and Electronic Gold Receipts (EGRs) tradeable on stock exchanges. Investments in these SEBI regulated gold products can be made through SEBI registered intermediaries and are governed by the regulatory framework prescribed by SEBI.

SEBI has informed that said digital gold products are different from SEBI regulated gold products as they are neither notified as securities nor regulated as commodity derivatives. They operate entirely outside the purview of SEBI.

SEBI has stated that such digital gold products may entail significant risks for investors and may expose investors to counterparty and operational risks and none of the investor protection mechanisms under securities market purview shall be available for investments in such Digital Gold/ E-Gold products.

Share

Recent Posts

  • consumer-protection

Compensation to borrower upheld as bank did not verify construction progress before loan disbursals to builder

Bank was liable to pay compensation to borrower as it did not verify the progress of construction before loan disbursals…

21 hours ago
  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002

No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward arrest order & material in possession to Adjudicating Authority

No timeline mentioned in PMLA to forward the arrest order and the material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority. It…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Release of seized assets if mandatory on completion of 120 days? Question referred to Larger Bench

Whether the release of seized assets is mandatory upon completion of 120 days –High Court refers the case to a…

2 days ago
  • Uncategorized

EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31/10/2026

EPFO Extends date of filing of new ECR for the wage month September to 31st October 2026 Taking into account…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Earlier acceptance is relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation of fictitious investment

Earlier acceptance of investment is a relevant evidence in evaluating subsequent allegation that investments were fictitious from inception – High…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

A bald statement recorded during survey can not be basis for any addition

A bald statement recorded during survey would not in itself be a foundation for any addition - ITAT In a…

5 days ago