The offshore accounts linked to Indian AMCs

Asset Management Companies (AMCs) in India manage trillions of rupees of household savings through mutual funds. These are supposed to be transparent, tightly regulated, and focused on domestic market opportunities. But peel back the layers, and you’ll find something curious: many AMCs and their parent groups maintain offshore accounts, feeder funds, and complex cross-border vehicles that raise questions about governance, transparency, and investor risk.

While offshore structures aren’t always illegal, their opacity makes them fertile ground for conflicts of interest, tax arbitrage, and round-tripping. Retail investors rarely see these offshore linkages, yet their savings may be indirectly exposed.

Why Offshore Accounts Exist

1. Tax Efficiency

   • Offshore jurisdictions like Mauritius, Singapore, and Luxembourg offer lower tax rates on capital gains.

   • AMCs use them to minimize liabilities for institutional clients.

2. Feeder Fund Structures

   • Many global AMCs create offshore “feeder funds” that channel foreign investor money into Indian schemes.

   • These feeder accounts often hold significant stakes in Indian mutual fund portfolios.

3. Round-Tripping Allegations

   • Offshore accounts can facilitate money leaving India only to return disguised as foreign investment, inflating valuations.

4. Hidden Leverage and Derivatives

   • Offshore vehicles sometimes carry exposures (swaps, notes, derivatives) that don’t show up in domestic AMC disclosures.

5. Political and Regulatory Shielding

   • Sensitive or connected investments can be routed offshore, away from SEBI’s direct scrutiny.

Common Offshore Routes Used by Indian AMCs

1. Mauritius

   • Long a favorite due to favorable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

   • Many AMC-linked entities operate here to route investments into India tax-free.

2. Singapore

   • Became popular after tax treaties changed with Mauritius.

   • Singapore subsidiaries often act as conduits for Asia-focused funds.

3. Luxembourg & Ireland

   • Used by global AMCs with Indian arms for UCITS-compliant funds targeting European investors.

4. Dubai & Cayman Islands

   • Increasingly used for wealth management arms and private fund structures tied to Indian AMCs.

Case References

1. Franklin Templeton India (2020 Debt Fund Crisis)

• While Franklin’s crisis centered on illiquid debt exposure, reports noted that offshore investors in their feeder funds had early insight into stress.

• This raised suspicion that offshore accounts enjoyed better information flows than domestic retail investors.

2. Mauritius Route & Indian Equities

• Multiple global AMCs use Mauritius-registered funds to invest in Indian markets.

• Critics allege that some investments are round-tripped Indian money, raising questions about real foreign interest.

3. Offshore Advisory Arms

• Several AMCs operate Singapore-based advisory outfits that decide investments for both foreign and Indian funds.

• This dual structure blurs accountability—who is really managing investor money?

Why Offshore Accounts Are a Red Flag

1. Opacity
   Offshore accounts hide beneficial ownership, making it difficult to know who really controls the money.

2. Conflict of Interest
   Offshore arms may prioritize global clients over domestic retail investors.

3. Information Asymmetry
   Offshore feeder funds sometimes get better data, quicker redemption options, or preferential treatment.

4. Risk Transfer
   Exotic or high-risk exposures may be parked offshore, shielding the AMC’s Indian arm from immediate accountability.

Regulatory Gaps

• SEBI Jurisdiction Limits: Offshore accounts fall outside SEBI’s direct regulation, even if linked to Indian AMCs.

• Disclosure Blind Spots: Fund fact sheets rarely mention offshore affiliate dealings.

• Cross-Border Loopholes: Tax treaties and global fund structures allow shifting profits offshore legally.

• Weak Whistleblower Protection: Insiders who expose offshore misuse face retaliation, as seen in past AMC controversies.

Impact on Retail Investors

1. Hidden Risk: Offshore bets can fail spectacularly, but retail investors in India only see the damage when NAVs fall.

2. Unequal Treatment: Foreign investors through offshore feeders sometimes exit earlier, while domestic investors are locked in.

3. Erosion of Trust: Every revelation of offshore secrecy damages the credibility of Indian mutual funds.

Lessons for Investors

1. Read AMC Parent Structures
   If the AMC is part of a global firm with offshore feeder funds, assume cross-border interests may override retail ones.

2. Track Feeder Fund Activity
   Large offshore redemptions can signal stress before it hits domestic NAVs.

3. Beware of Sudden Liquidity Crises
   Offshore-linked schemes are often the first to shut gates in a crunch.

4. Prefer Simpler Structures
   Index funds and government bond-heavy schemes have less offshore entanglement.

Ethical Reflection

Offshore accounts are not inherently fraudulent, but when Indian AMCs use them as shadow vaults, tax shelters, or preferential channels, it undermines retail trust. Investors entrust AMCs to act as fiduciaries—not as financial engineers exploiting secrecy jurisdictions.

The ethical obligation is clear: disclose, simplify, and align with the interests of domestic investors who form the backbone of the industry.

Conclusion

The offshore accounts linked to Indian AMCs reveal an uncomfortable truth: retail investors’ savings may be entangled in global webs they never agreed to. From Mauritius to Singapore to Luxembourg, these accounts blur transparency, enable conflicts, and sometimes leave domestic investors at a disadvantage.

For regulators, the mission is to tighten disclosure rules and monitor offshore affiliates closely. For AMCs, the responsibility is honesty—investor trust cannot be built on hidden accounts. And for investors, the lesson is vigilance: in finance, what you don’t see offshore can hurt you more than what you do see onshore.

Because in the mutual fund world, the real risks are often hidden in plain sight—just in another jurisdiction.

ALSO READ: The “invisible” cartel of market makers