Would investors be able to accredit themselves?

No. Paragraph 5.3.6 of the consultation paper states expressly that the proposal does not permit an investor to self-certify or self-declare accredited status. The determination would sit with the manager, who would verify it against a latest income tax return, a chartered accountant's net-worth certificate no older than six months, or an eCAS or broker statement no older than six months.

Would the accreditation agency route disappear?

No. SEBI describes manager-led accreditation as an additional, optional route rather than a substitute. The accreditation agency route would continue, and SEBI notes that investors who participate in schemes of multiple unrelated managers, or who prefer not to give financial data to a manager, may keep using it. A separate proposal would align the agency route's validity norms with the manager-led ones.

What counts as a securities market asset under the proposal?

Securities held in demat form including equity, debt, REIT and InvIT units and AIF units; holdings in mutual fund folios; futures open interest positions; unlisted securities in demat form; and overseas securities market investments. SEBI describes this as a narrower and more conservative measure than the existing financial assets test, which also takes in bank deposits and certificates of deposit.

What conflict does SEBI itself flag in the proposal?

SEBI records that entrusting accreditation to the manager departs from the 2021 framework, which deliberately gave the task to independent agencies. The paper describes the manager as an interested party that stands to gain the investor's commitment and the associated fees, and says this may be seen as a dilution of independence. Proposal 3 puts a package of safeguards to consultation in response.

Can the public still comment?

Yes, until 3 September 2026, through SEBI's web-based public comments form. Nothing in the paper is law. Draft amendment text sits at Annexure D, and SEBI notes that analogous amendments would be carried out in other relevant regulations.

13 August 2026

SEBI proposes letting AIF managers accredit their own investors, and would add a ₹5 crore securities-assets route to accredited status

What is SEBI proposing to change about the accredited investor framework?

SEBI's consultation paper of 13 August 2026 puts ten proposals on the accredited investor framework. Managers would be permitted to determine and record accreditation at onboarding, valid three years within a manager group. Securities market assets of ₹5 crore for individuals and ₹20 crore for body corporates would become a third eligibility route. All persons resident outside India would be deemed accredited. Comments close 3 September 2026.

What changed

SEBI issued a consultation paper on 13 August 2026 proposing a review of the accredited investor framework. Ten proposals are on the table. Public comments close on 3 September 2026, through SEBI's web-based form only. Nothing here is law yet; draft amendment text sits at Annexure D.

The paper follows representations from industry associations and recommendations of SEBI's Alternative Investment Policy Advisory Committee, which the paper records as having broadly agreed with the three main proposals.

Why accreditation matters here

Accreditation is the gate to most of the flexibility in the AIF framework. The ₹1 crore minimum does not apply to an accredited investor. The Accredited Investors Only AIF carries six relaxations. Angel funds may onboard accredited investors only, and co-investment vehicles are open only where the co-investing investor is accredited. SEBI states a longer-term aim of moving from a minimum commitment threshold to accreditation status as the primary marker of investor sophistication.

Take-up has been thin against that ambition.

3,820 accredited investors, up from 649 a year earlier (SEBI, Consultation Paper on Review of the Accredited Investor Framework, as at 31 July 2026)

The ten proposals

#	Proposal
1	A manager may determine and record an investor's accredited status as part of onboarding
2	Validity: fresh accreditation each time a different manager onboards the investor; three years where the manager, recognised at group level, onboards across its own AIF, SIF and PMS vehicles
3	Safeguards: a laid-down accreditation policy per manager, record retention, independent oversight and an accountability framework
4	The accreditation agency route continues alongside the manager-led route
5	Agency-route validity norms aligned with the manager-led norms
6	Securities market assets as an eligibility criterion, at ₹5 crore for individuals and ₹20 crore for body corporates
7	Deemed accredited status extended to every Person Resident Outside India, including all FPIs, as defined under FEMA, 1999
8	A look-through for LLPs where each partner is individually accredited
9	A wholly owned subsidiary treated as accredited where the parent holds the prescribed net worth
10	The draft regulatory amendments at Annexure D

The existing tests stay. Regulation 2(ab) currently requires annual income of ₹2 crore, or net worth of ₹7.5 crore with ₹3.75 crore in financial assets, or income of ₹1 crore with net worth of ₹5 crore. Proposal 6 adds a third route rather than replacing them, and SEBI's stated reason is verification: an eCAS statement from a depository can be checked without a chartered accountant in the loop.

On the size of that route, SEBI puts a figure on the addressable pool.

approximately 3.7 lakh investors eligible for accreditation under the proposed securities-assets threshold, against a total AIF investor population of around 96,000 (SEBI, Consultation Paper on Review of the Accredited Investor Framework, as at 30 April 2026)

What SEBI says is not settled

The paper is unusually direct about the tension in its own main proposal. The 2021 framework gave accreditation to independent agencies deliberately, so that the determination would not sit with a party to the commercial relationship. Proposal 1 moves it to the manager, whom the paper describes as an interested party standing to gain the investor's commitment and the associated fees. SEBI records the risk of inconsistent standards across managers and puts the safeguards of Proposal 3 to consultation rather than asserting they are sufficient.

Two of the nine issues raised by industry are answered by being made moot. Accreditation based on the assets of a foreign pooled investment vehicle, and certification of foreign investors' net worth by bodies equivalent to Indian chartered accountants, both fall away if Proposal 7 deems every person resident outside India accredited.

One point of existing practice is restated rather than proposed for change: under the current framework an investor tagged as accredited stays tagged for the remaining life of that scheme, even if the financial position tested at onboarding no longer holds.

Sources

Consultation Paper on review of Accredited Investor framework — SEBI, 13 August 2026 · primary
Consultation Paper on Review of the Accredited Investor Framework, full text, 45 pages — SEBI, 13 August 2026 · primary
SEBI seeks public comments on the Consultation Paper on Review of the Accredited Investor Framework — PR No. 45/2026 — SEBI, 13 August 2026 · primary

Dated 13 August 2026, last checked against source 25 August 2026. The dateline is the date of the instrument this item reports, not the date the page was written. This page reports what a document says. It is information, not legal, tax or investment advice, and it is not a recommendation about any fund.

All news · Regulation · Glossary · Fund directory