Multi-lender LSPs – Compliance & Considerations 

– Aditya Iyer, Manager (Legal) (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

  1. The illusion of choice – a consumer’s woe

Consider this: you’re out shopping on a Saturday afternoon for a perfect pair of jeans. You stop by a store that retails multiple brands and boasts the best variety. With a salesperson to guide you, you make your pick after careful diligence and comparison, and finally check out.  Hours later, however, you discover that certain brands were selling better trousers at a lower price point, in the very same store, but these were deliberately obscured from your vision. Now, you feel duped, hurt and confused.

It’s still the same product. However, what has changed is your ability to make an informed choice. What’s worse, indeed, is that you were made to believe that you had an informed choice. 

A sincere consumer, shopping for trousers from a multi-brand store. 

  1. Multi-lender LSPs (MLLs)

Drawing parallels from the above, in the lending space, a similar tale unfolds. There is an emerging class of platforms that operate as Multi-lender LSPs (MLLs). These MLLs undertake the sourcing function for multiple lenders against a given product. For instance, Partner ‘A’ may act as a sourcing agent via its platform for unsecured personal loans offered by Lenders X, Y, and Z. 

In this case, the consumer may be onboarded onto the platform and be under the impression that they are making an informed choice, and receiving an impartial display of all options for the given loan product. If this is indeed the case, then there is no issue. However, it is possible that due to factors including (a) certain Lender-LSP Arrangements, and (b) differences in the commission received from various lenders, the loan product of a particular lender may be pushed to the borrower. The borrower may also be influenced towards making a particular selection through the use of deceptive design practices designed to subvert their decision-making process (Dark Patterns – for more, see our resource here)

Here, the lack of choice and transparency, and insufficient disclosure in the sourcing process would be an unfair lending practice. And unlike a simple pair of trousers, here the consumer’s hard-earned money and personal finances are at stake. 

A similar tale unfolds on a multi-lender platform. 

  1. Requirements for REs under the Digital Lending Directions, 2025 
  • Para 6 of the DL Directions

In order to protect the borrower and their right to choose, the RBI vide the Digital Lending Directions, 2025 (‘DL Directions’) has prescribed additional requirements upon REs contracting with such MLLs (refer to our article on the DL Directions here). 

These requirements under Para 6 of the DL Directions are applicable upon “RE-LSP arrangements involving multiple lenders”, and pertain to: 

  • The borrower being provided a digital view of all the loan offers which meet the borrower’s requirements. 
  • A view of the unmatched lenders as well.
  • The digital view would have to include the KFS, APR, and penal charges if any of all the lenders, to display terms in a comparable manner. 
  • The content displayed should be unbiased and objective, free from the influence of any dark patterns or deceptive design practices designed to favour a given product. 

The RBI’s annual report for FY 2024-2025 also reveals that the rationale behind these additions was to mitigate risks arising out of LSPs that display the loan offers in a discretionary way, and “which seldom display all available loan offers to the borrower for making an informed choice”. These requirements were, of course, first published via the Draft Guidelines on ‘Digital Lending – Transparency in Aggregation of Loan Products for Multiple Lenders’ (our team’s views on the same may be found here).

  • Multi-lender LSP v. LSP working for multiple lenders – Is there a difference? 

Although this may not be immediately apparent from the language, the “RE-LSP arrangements involving multiple lenders” being contemplated here (in our view) are not RE-LSP arrangements where a single LSP is contracting with multiple REs, each for a separate product, but rather the MLLs described above.

For example, consider a scenario where the LSP works with Lender ‘A’ for vehicle loans, Lender ‘B’ for personal loans, Lender ‘C’ for gold loans and so on. Would this then be considered a Multi-lender LSP requiring compliance under Para 6 of the DL Directions? In our view, no. 

Here, because each borrower has only a single lender for a particular product, there is no question of their ability to choose being prejudiced, or there being a need to draw a comparison between the terms offered by multiple lenders. Hence, the requirements under Para 6 of the DL Directions would not be applicable upon REs contracting with such LSPs. 

Such requirements would only become relevant in the case where the LSP is undertaking sourcing for multiple lenders against a particular product. In such a case, because the borrower is under the impression that they have a choice, it becomes crucial to protect the borrower’s ability to make that choice (in an informed, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner). 

  1. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 

Additionally, with reference to the above scenario, under Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, the following (amongst others) have been recognised as consumer rights (upon violation of which the consumer can seek redressal): 

  • Right to be informed: “the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices”
  • Access to competitive prices: “the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of goods, products or services at competitive prices”. 

In our view, with respect to MLLs, this may be interpreted to mean that the borrower has a right to be informed of the comparable options and to receive an impartial, unbiased, and competitive display of the terms to enable their decision-making.

Finally, it is to be noted that such MLLs, would also qualify as “E-Commerce Entities” under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, and the said rules inter alia cast a duty upon such entities to ensure that they do not adopt any unfair trade practice, whether in course of business on its platform, or otherwise [Rule (4)(2)]. Under the E-commerce Rules, a “marketplace e-commerce entity” is an e-commerce entity providing an information technology platform to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers. Marketplace e-commerce entities are required to ensure that: 

  • All the details about the sellers necessary to help the buyer make an informed decision at the pre-purchase stage are “displayed prominently in an appropriate place on its platform” 

To the extent MLLs would meet this definition, they would also need to ensure the same. 

Tokenisation of Real World Assets – The Way Ahead for Creating Securities

-Subhojit Shome (subhojit@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction

The tokenisation of real-world assets (RWA) using cryptographic technology is rapidly emerging as a transformative innovation in the financial ecosystem. Note here that the term RWA refers to all traditional assets including both real assets as well as traditional financial assets that exist in the physical world. By leveraging blockchain technology, tokenisation enables the representation of tangible assets, such as real estate, commodities, and artwork, or intangible assets like intellectual property, as digital tokens on a distributed ledger. This development is reshaping the way assets are managed, traded, and accessed, creating new opportunities and challenges.

RWA tokenisation has garnered attention due to several converging factors. Blockchain technology offers a streamlined alternative to traditional systems by reducing intermediaries, lowering transaction costs, and ensuring faster settlement times. Fractional ownership of high-value assets makes them accessible to a broader range of investors, enhancing market liquidity. Blockchain’s immutable nature provides a transparent record of transactions and ownership, reducing fraud and enhancing trust. Additionally, tokenised assets are borderless, enabling seamless cross-border trading and investment opportunities.

According to market reports, the capital locked in tokenised RWA is expected to touch $50 billion by the end of 2025 surpassing all previous records. In 2024, the ecosystem had achieved a 32% annual growth rate.

In this article, we look at the impetus behind this technology, its status of adoption in India and critical issues that act as roadblocks in its development. 

Development

The tokenisation market has witnessed significant advancements in a number of areas. Real estate tokenisation has enabled properties to be tokenised for fractional ownership, reducing entry barriers for smaller investors. Similarly, commodities like gold and other precious metals have been tokenised, providing an efficient means of trading and ownership. High-value artworks and collectibles are being tokenised to allow multiple investors to own shares in masterpieces. Tokenisation has also extended into private equity and debt markets, enabling innovative funding mechanisms and the development of secondary market opportunities. Moreover, the emergence of regulated tokenisation platforms in certain developed economies (e.g. the UK) underscores the growing maturity of this market.

Figure 1: Benefits of Tokenisation of Real-World Assets using Blockchain

Fractional ownership creates liquidity in traditionally illiquid assets. It also democratises investment by enabling wider participation through reduced minimum investment thresholds. Here the emphasis is not on reduction of any regulatory investment threshold but rather, being represented in the digital world, RWA tokenisation allows infinitesimally fractional parts of an asset to be bought and sold. Cost efficiency is achieved by reducing reliance on intermediaries, which lowers transaction and administrative costs. Blockchain’s transparency increases trust and reduces fraud risks. Furthermore, smart contracts enable automation of compliance, dividend distribution, and other processes.

Process

The process of RWA tokenisation broadly involves the following steps –

Figure 2: Process of RWA tokenisation

In the tokenisation process one may note that the custody of the underlying asset is separated from the ownership of the asset. While the ownership is represented by use of tokens, the underlying asset may need to be held with a custodian ‘off-chain’ (i.e. in the physical world). 

Issues

However, tokenisation is not without challenges. Regulatory uncertainty remains a significant hurdle due to inconsistent global regulatory frameworks. Technology risks, such as cybersecurity concerns and vulnerabilities in smart contracts, could undermine trust. Market volatility is another concern, as tokens may experience higher price fluctuations compared to their underlying assets. Some tokenised assets may face illiquidity risks if the secondary markets lack sufficient depth. Additionally, legal ambiguity regarding ownership rights and the enforceability of tokenised claims persists in many jurisdictions.

Several key regulatory considerations must be addressed. Asset classification is crucial for defining whether tokenised assets are securities, commodities, payment instruments or another category altogether.

In India, regulatory uncertainty remains the key issue in the implementation of RWA tokenisation. Say, for instance, there is tokenisation of real estate in which the management of the property is overseen by the issuer or by a manager appointed by such issuer and fractional ownership units are offered for sale to retail investors. Such a transaction starts to take on the colour of a collective investment scheme and SEBI may intervene and mandate the issuer to register as such with the regulator. In the case of real estate these schemes can also be viewed as having a structure akin to a REIT especially SM REIT

The SEBI is yet to notify any regulatory prescription specifically for the purposes of regulating crypto-assets and or token offerings to the retail public and it has been reported in the press1 that the securities market regulator has informed the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that regulation of crypto-assets would be difficult given the nature of technology that sustains them. In the matter of, An RTI enquiry, as referenced in the matter of Appeal No. 4532 of 2021 filed by Rohith Methayil Rajagopal, was raised with the SEBI’s CPIO as to the stand of Regulator with regard to “digital trading and possession of Cryptocurrencies by the Indian Citizens” and if SEBI had any “legal document and its date that permits digital trading of Bitcoin / Cryptocurrencies in India”. The response of the CPIO, as affirmed by the appellate authority, was that it did not have the knowledge of either matter. Based on this one can conclude that the Regulator has not, yet, formalised its stance over dealings in crypto assets. Recently, however, the Regulator has expressed an openness to a multi-regulator based oversight framework for crypto-assets.2

There have been interest shown by mutual fund houses to invest in ETFs or indices on blockchain-based projects and crypto-assets and draft scheme information documents were filed with the Regulator. SEBI, however, has expressed its reservations3 on approving such funds/ fund of funds. Highlighting high degree of regulatory uncertainty when it comes to crypto-assets which is not an ideal situation either for business houses looking to raise funds using crypto-assets or for investors who have invested in such assets.

Another major inhibitor is the tax treatment of such tokenised assets. This is because given the construct of such token it will get classified as virtual digital asset  under section 2(47A)4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The implication of this is that income on sale of such assets will get taxed at a flat rate of 30%. Other than the cost of acquisition, any other expenses incurred with respect to such assets are not allowed to be deducted while computing the income. Further, any loss from the transfer of such assets are also not allowed to be set-off against such income or under income computed under any provision of the act. Accordingly, such losses are also not allowed to be carried forward to any succeeding assessment years.

GIFT City

Recently, however, there has been some headway in asset tokenisation in Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT City) which may be poised to host India’s inaugural regulated platform for the tokenization of real estate and infrastructure assets. This initiative aims to democratize investment opportunities by enabling fractional ownership through digital tokens, leveraging blockchain technology to enhance liquidity and transparency in the sector. To this extent the IFSCA has constituted an ‘Expert Committee on Asset Tokenization’; the terms of reference of this committee are as follows –

  • Develop regulations and policy guidelines for tokenization of real and physical assets
  • Examine the legal validity of Smart Contracts
  • Develop a risk management framework for digital tokens
  • Examine the role of Digital Custodians in the asset tokenization model and develop operational policy measures

Conclusion

Tokenisation is a transformative technology that has the capability to change the very nature of real world assets in the way they are managed and traded. The flow of capital into this sector is an indication of the potential of this sector in contributing to the economic growth of a country. In the formation of the working group on crypto-assets to reform US digit asset regulations, the US has taken stock of this development in the market and the need to make such technologies mainstream. It is encouraging to see India’s intention to move ahead with such innovation in the GIFT City. It is now time to wait and watch whether tokenisation will find acceptance in the economic mainstream and for this to happen a clear regulatory architecture has to emerge in India.

  1. Why has the market watchdog said it is difficult to regulate such currencies? What is the status of the bill? – Article in The Hindu, June 12, 2022 ↩︎
  2. SEBI considers regulatory role in crypto trading, diverging from RBI’s approach. Here’s what experts think – Article in the Economic Times, May 17, 2024 ↩︎
  3.  Sebi says no to mutual funds for cryptos. What are your alternatives? – Article in the Economic Times, December 30, 2021 ↩︎
  4. Virtual crypto-assets as defined under Section 2(47A) of the Act means—
     any information or code or number or token (not being Indian currency or foreign currency), generated through cryptographic means or otherwise, by whatever name called, providing a digital representation of value exchanged with or without consideration, with the promise or representation of having inherent value, or functions as a store of value or a unit of account including its use in any financial transaction or investment, but not limited to investment scheme; and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically; a non-fungible token or any other token of similar nature, by whatever name called;
    any other crypto-asset, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify. 
    However, the Central Government is empowered to exclude any crypto-asset from the definition of virtual crypto-asset by a notification in the official gazette on this behalf.

    ↩︎

Workshop on Co-lending and Loan Partnering

For registration click here: https://forms.gle/bq18tHgQb618jAcb9

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF

Survival at Stake? The impact of RBI’s Norms on P2P Lending Platforms 

Dayita Kanodia and Manisha Ghosh l finserv@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

RBI on August 16, 2024 has issued a notification for the review and modification of Master Direction – Non-Banking Financial Company – Peer to Peer Lending Platform (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2017 (‘Directions’) for platforms acting as intermediaries and providing an online marketplace for lending between peers. 

The review has been carried out pursuant to observations that some of these platforms have adopted certain practices which are violative of the said Directions. These practices include, among others, violation of the prescribed funds transfer mechanism, promoting peer to peer lending as an investment product with features like tenure linked assured minimum returns, providing liquidity options and at times acting like deposit takers and lenders instead of being a platform. 

Read more

Introducing Financial Services on ONDC: Opportunities & Challenges for Digital Lenders

– Shreshtha Barman | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Read more

Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2023:  Analysing the Impact on Digital Lenders

– Subhojit Shome, Assistant Manager | subhojit@vinodkothari.com

Click here to view our: Consultancy and advisory services on Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF

Watch our Shastrartha on Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 – Analysing the impact on financial sector lender

Inter-operable regulatory sandbox: A playground for fintechs ?

– Dayita Kanodia, Executive | finserv@vinodkothari.com

A regulatory sandbox allows live testing of innovative products/services under regulatory supervision and with regulatory relaxations. This in turn allows regulators to design evidence-based and innovation-friendly regulations.

An Inter-Operable Regulatory Sandbox or IoRS as defined by both RBI and SEBI is therefore a mechanism to facilitate testing of innovative hybrid financial products / services falling within the regulatory ambit of more than one financial sector regulator.

Read more

FAQs on Default Loss Guarantee in Digital Lending

An understanding of the Guidelines issued by RBI

Team Finserv | finserv@vinodkothari.com

On September 02, 2022, the RBI issued the “Guidelines on Digital Lending” (“DL Guidelines”), which had essentially put a bar on “Loss sharing/ structured default guarantee arrangements” such as First Loss Default Guarantees, likening their nature to that of “synthetic securitisation” as defined under the Master Direction – Reserve Bank of India (Securitisation of Standard Assets) Directions, 2021 (“SSA Directions”). This caused a disruption in the digital lending industry as most of the arrangements ran on some form of loss-sharing arrangement. (Refer to our FAQs on the Digital Lending Guidelines here)

In its Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies dated June 8, 2023, the RBI announced its intention to issue a regulatory framework for permitting Default Loss Guarantee arrangements in Digital Lending[1]. The same day, the Guidelines on Default Loss Guarantee (DLG) in Digital Lending have been issued by the regulator (‘DLG Guidelines’).

Read more

RBI to release guidelines to permit default guarantees

The evolution of a concept, from its inception to being prohibited, and ultimately establishing a regulatory framework to allow its practice

– Anita Baid (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

The concept of First Loss Default Guarantees (FLDGs) in the financial industry has experienced a remarkable journey, marked by its inception, subsequent prohibition, and eventually being on the verge of a resurgence with the introduction of a regulatory framework. It had gained significant attention in the realm of fintech industry, whose remarkable expansion in India is largely responsible for propelling FLDGs. Nevertheless, it is essential to note that guarantees are not a novel concept; they have been widely employed in the financial sector for a considerable period of time. (Our article on ‘Lending without risk and risk without lending’ can be read here)

In its Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies dated June 8, 2023, the RBI has announced its intention to issue a regulatory framework for permitting Default Loss Guarantee arrangements in Digital Lending. This article delves into the intriguing evolution of Structured Default Guarantees, examining their rise, fall, and subsequent rebirth, shedding light on the regulatory landscape that has shaped their existence.

Read more