GIFT IFSC has, in a relatively short span, positioned itself as India’s most credible alternative for fund managers seeking global capital. Backed by a unified regulator, tax efficiency, and a progressively liberalised regime, it is no longer just a policy experiment—it is a serious jurisdiction competing with established fund domiciles like Singapore and Mauritius.
However, setting up a Fund Management Entity (FME) and launching an Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) in GIFT IFSC is not a mechanical process. It requires careful sequencing, regulatory alignment, and a clear commercial thesis. The structure you choose at the outset—particularly whether to build your own FME or operate through a platform—has long-term implications on cost, control, and scalability.
This guide walks through the entire lifecycle—from structuring decision to fund launch—with a practical lens.
An FME is a licensed entity in GIFT IFSC authorised to manage investment funds such as AIFs. It operates as the regulated fund manager, taking responsibility for investment decisions, regulatory compliance, and investor management within the IFSCA framework.
Under the IFSCA (Fund Management) Regulations, 2022, any person intending to manage pooled capital in IFSC must first obtain registration as a Fund Management Entity. The FME is not merely a licensing requirement—it is the regulatory core around which the entire fund structure is built.
In practical terms, the architecture is straightforward. The FME functions as the regulated manager, while the AIF serves as the fund vehicle, most commonly established in a trust form. This separation ensures that fund management activities are carried out by a supervised and accountable entity, while the fund itself remains a distinct investment pool.
Without an FME, there is no legal basis to operate or manage a fund in IFSC. More importantly, IFSCA does not treat the FME as a passive or nominal entity—it is expected to demonstrate real substance in terms of governance, qualified personnel, and operational infrastructure.
This brings us to the first and most critical decision in the setup journey—how you choose to access or build this FME layer.
Step 1: Choosing the Right Entry Structure
Before incorporation or documentation begins, the most consequential decision is structural. At this stage, you are not just deciding how to set up a fund—you are defining the operating model of your entire investment platform.
Broadly, there are two approaches. You may either establish your own FME or launch your fund under an existing FME platform.
This is not simply a question of cost. It determines control, scalability, regulatory responsibility, and long-term economics.
The platform route offers speed and lower upfront commitment. It allows first-time managers or smaller funds to enter the IFSC ecosystem without building a full regulatory infrastructure. However, this convenience comes at a price—ongoing platform fees, AUM-linked charges, and limited control over operational and governance aspects.
In contrast, setting up your own FME requires higher initial investment and regulatory effort but provides full ownership of the fund management platform. As assets under management scale, this structure becomes significantly more efficient and strategically flexible.
For fund managers with a long-term vision—particularly those planning multiple fund launches or building an institutional investment franchise—the own-FME route is typically the more rational and sustainable choice.
However, before moving into entity incorporation, there is a foundational step that is often underestimated in practice—securing a physical presence within GIFT IFSC.
Step 2: Establishing Presence in GIFT IFSC
Setting up a unit in GIFT IFSC is not a post-incorporation formality—it begins with identifying and finalising an office space within the GIFT SEZ. This is the first tangible requirement for establishing regulatory presence.
In practical terms, fund managers have two options. They may either lease a dedicated private office or opt for a co-working setup within GIFT IFSC. For most first-time setups, co-working spaces are a commercially efficient starting point, with costs typically ranging between ₹15,000 to ₹25,000 per seat per month.
Once the space is finalised, the developer or facility provider issues a Letter of Approval (LOA). This document plays a dual role. It forms the basis for SEZ unit registration and simultaneously serves as proof of registered office for the FME entity at the time of incorporation.
This step, while operational in nature, is strategically important. Without an IFSC address backed by an LOA, neither SEZ registration nor FME licensing can proceed in a meaningful way.
With the physical and regulatory footprint initiated, the next step is to formally establish the FME entity.
Step 3: Incorporating the FME Entity
The FME is typically incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 2013. While the regulatory framework permits LLPs, they are rarely preferred in practice due to governance expectations and the need to demonstrate institutional credibility before IFSCA.
At this stage, incorporation must be approached as a regulatory design exercise rather than a procedural formality. The most critical consideration is aligning the capital structure with the minimum net worth requirement prescribed under the IFSCA framework.
A Registered FME (Non-Retail) is required to maintain a minimum net worth of USD 500,000. This has a direct impact on how both authorised and paid-up capital are structured at the time of incorporation.
From a practical standpoint, the authorised share capital should be kept sufficiently high to accommodate the required capital infusion without repeated alterations. The paid-up capital, on the other hand, must be planned in a manner that enables the entity to meet the net worth threshold prior to or at the time of FME registration.
In most cases, promoters incorporate the entity with an initial capital base and subsequently infuse funds in phases to meet the USD 500,000 requirement. The timing, source, and structuring of this infusion become particularly important in cross-border situations, where FEMA compliance, valuation norms, and reporting obligations come into play.
Alongside capital structuring, two additional tracks must be aligned.
First, the entity’s registered office and operational presence in GIFT IFSC must be formally integrated into the incorporation framework. This ensures that the entity is not merely incorporated in India, but is positioned as an IFSC-based operating unit from inception.
Second, the board composition and promoter framework must be calibrated to meet the “fit and proper” criteria. IFSCA evaluates not just financial strength, but also the integrity, competence, and track record of those in control. This includes assessing the background of promoters, the experience of directors, and the overall governance architecture of the entity.
At a practical level, this stage is where capital, control, and regulatory positioning converge. A poorly structured incorporation—particularly one that ignores capital planning or governance alignment—can create avoidable friction at the licensing stage. In contrast, a well-designed entity structure significantly improves the efficiency and predictability of the FME approval process.
Step 4: SEZ Approval and IFSC Unit Registration
Before approaching IFSCA for FME registration, the entity must first be recognised as an approved unit within the IFSC Special Economic Zone framework.
GIFT IFSC operates within an SEZ, and therefore, any entity intending to carry out financial services must obtain SEZ unit approval. This is typically done through the issuance of a Letter of Approval (LOA) by the Development Commissioner.
While the groundwork for this—such as finalising office space and obtaining in-principle LOA—has already been addressed at the pre-incorporation stage, this step involves formalising the entity’s status as an operational IFSC unit post-incorporation.
At this stage, the incorporated entity submits its application to the Development Commissioner, along with incorporation documents, business activity details, and supporting documentation aligned with IFSC operations. Upon approval, the entity is formally recognised as an SEZ unit authorised to undertake permitted financial services activities.
This step is often underestimated, but it is foundational. Without SEZ unit recognition, the entity lacks the regulatory standing to proceed with IFSCA registration.
Once the entity is formally established as an IFSC unit, it is positioned to apply for FME registration with IFSCA.
Step 5: Obtaining FME Registration from IFSCA
For most AIF setups in GIFT IFSC, the relevant category is a Registered FME (Non-Retail). This is the standard route for fund managers intending to manage Category I and Category II AIFs.
At a conceptual level, IFSCA is not merely granting a licence—it is evaluating whether the applicant is capable of operating a regulated fund management business. The threshold, therefore, is both financial and qualitative. The applicant must demonstrate a minimum net worth of USD 500,000, backed by a credible capital structure, along with a competent management team, a clearly articulated business plan, and a robust governance and risk management framework.
The registration process itself is documentation-intensive and involves structured regulatory interaction. It begins with the preparation and filing of the FME application with IFSCA, along with the prescribed fees—typically an application fee of USD 2,500 and a registration fee of USD 7,500 payable upon approval. Once submitted, the application undergoes detailed scrutiny. IFSCA does not follow a one-step approval model; instead, it engages in multiple rounds of queries covering the applicant’s structure, investment strategy, personnel, and operational readiness. The process is iterative and requires timely, well-reasoned responses. In practice, timelines range between 6 to 10 weeks, depending largely on the quality of the initial submission.
A critical component of the application is the business plan, which must go far beyond a high-level overview. It is expected to clearly articulate the proposed fund strategy, target investor base, asset classes, revenue model, operational setup (including any outsourcing arrangements), and the overall growth roadmap. Alongside this, the applicant must submit a comprehensive set of internal policies covering risk management, compliance monitoring, AML and KYC procedures, conflict of interest management, and valuation and reporting frameworks. These documents are not treated as standard templates—IFSCA expects them to be tailored to the specific fund strategy and operating model. In practice, weak or generic documentation is one of the most common reasons for regulatory delays.
Equally important is the appointment of key managerial personnel, particularly the Principal Officer and the Compliance Officer. These positions must be filled immediately after incorporation and before filing the FME application, as their profiles form an integral part of the regulatory assessment. IFSCA evaluates their qualifications and experience in the context of the proposed fund strategy, and it is not uncommon for the regulator to interact directly with them during the review process to assess their understanding of the business and regulatory framework. This makes it essential that these roles are staffed with credible, experienced professionals rather than nominal appointees.
At a practical level, the FME registration stage is where the regulator forms its first substantive view of the applicant. The focus is not just on eligibility, but on overall preparedness—capital adequacy, governance standards, operational clarity, and the credibility of the team. A well-prepared application, supported by coherent documentation and capable personnel, can move through the process efficiently. Conversely, gaps in structuring or superficial submissions tend to result in prolonged engagement with the regulator.
In that sense, this stage is less about filing an application and more about presenting a credible, regulator-ready fund management platform.
Step 6: Building Real Operational Substance
One of the most common—and costly—mistakes at this stage is treating operational setup as a post-approval formality. In reality, IFSCA’s approach has evolved significantly, with a clear emphasis on ensuring that FMEs demonstrate genuine substance rather than functioning as paper entities.
At a minimum, the FME is expected to operate from a functional office within IFSC, supported by dedicated personnel and backed by systems capable of handling compliance, reporting, and investor communication. This is not merely about ticking regulatory boxes—the regulator increasingly evaluates whether the entity is capable of independently managing fund operations in a controlled and accountable manner.
In practice, this is the stage where regulatory intent meets commercial reality. The transition from a licensed entity to a functioning fund manager requires investment in people, processes, and infrastructure. Applicants who approach this stage with a narrow compliance mindset often struggle during regulatory reviews or post-registration supervision.
A well-prepared fund manager, on the other hand, treats this as the foundation of a long-term business—building operational depth that can support not just one fund, but a scalable platform.
Step 7: Structuring the AIF
With the FME structure in place—or, in many cases, progressing in parallel—the next step is to design the fund vehicle itself.
In the IFSC ecosystem, AIFs are most commonly structured as trusts. This involves a three-layered framework comprising the settlor, the trustee, and the investment manager, with the FME acting as the investment manager responsible for all fund management decisions.
While the legal structure is relatively standard, the real complexity lies in the documentation. The fund is effectively defined by its contractual framework, and this is where careful structuring becomes critical.
The documentation suite typically includes the Private Placement Memorandum (PPM), the Trust Deed, the Investment Management Agreement, and the Contribution Agreements. Among these, the PPM is the central document—it sets out the investment strategy, risk factors, fee model, governance structure, and investor rights in a comprehensive manner.
From a regulatory and commercial perspective, the quality of the PPM is often a decisive factor. A poorly structured or generic PPM not only delays regulatory approvals but can also create ambiguity in investor expectations and operational execution. Conversely, a well-drafted PPM aligns regulatory compliance with commercial clarity, serving as both a disclosure document and a strategic blueprint for the fund.
At a practical level, this stage is where the fund transitions from concept to a legally enforceable investment vehicle.
Step 8: AIF Entity Registration and SEZ Approval
Once the fund structure and documentation are in place, the next step is to formally establish the AIF as an IFSC unit and obtain the necessary approvals under the SEZ framework.
Similar to the FME, the AIF—typically set up as a trust—must be recognised as a unit within GIFT IFSC. This involves applying to the Development Commissioner for SEZ unit approval in the name of the AIF. While the FME acts as the investment manager, the AIF itself is treated as a separate economic unit for regulatory and operational purposes.
At this stage, the trustee (on behalf of the trust) submits the SEZ application along with key documents, including the Trust Deed, details of the investment manager (FME), proposed fund activity, and other supporting information. Upon review, the Development Commissioner grants approval, enabling the AIF to operate as an authorised IFSC unit.
This step is not merely procedural. SEZ recognition is essential for the AIF to access the broader IFSC ecosystem, including banking, tax benefits, and operational permissions.
In practice, the timing of this step must be carefully coordinated with the FME registration and AIF documentation process. Any mismatch—such as incomplete documentation or misalignment between the FME and AIF structure—can lead to delays.
Once the AIF is formally recognised as an IFSC unit, it is positioned to seek registration with IFSCA and proceed towards fund launch.
Step 9: Filing of PPM with IFSCA
In GIFT IFSC, an AIF is operationalised by filing the Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) with IFSCA, paying the prescribed fee, responding to queries, and obtaining approval before onboarding investors.
Under the IFSC framework, there is no separate “registration” of an AIF in the traditional sense. The regulatory approval is embedded in the filing and review of the Private Placement Memorandum (PPM).
At this stage, the FME—acting as the investment manager—submits the PPM to IFSCA. The PPM becomes the primary document through which the regulator evaluates the fund’s structure, investment strategy, governance framework, and investor disclosures.
IFSCA typically undertakes a detailed review and may raise queries or seek clarifications. The process is iterative, and approval is granted only once the regulator is satisfied with the disclosures and overall structure of the fund. Only after this approval can the fund onboard investors and proceed towards first close.
From a practical standpoint, Category II AIFs remain the most commonly used structure, particularly for private equity and venture capital strategies.
Regulatory Fee and Documentation Cost
The key regulatory expense at this stage is the IFSCA activity-based fee for PPM filing, which typically ranges between USD 10,000 – 15,000, depending on the AIF category.
In addition to the regulatory fee, the most significant cost component is the drafting of the Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) and associated fund documentation. In practice, this typically ranges between USD 15,000 – 40,000, depending on the complexity of the fund strategy, investor profile, and the extent of legal and tax structuring involved.
This distinction is important. While the government fee for AIF approval is relatively defined, the quality and depth of documentation—particularly the PPM—drive both cost and timelines. A well-structured PPM not only facilitates smoother regulatory approval but also sets the foundation for investor confidence and fund governance.
At a structural level, this stage represents the regulator’s final validation of the fund framework before it becomes commercially active.
Step 10: Operational Setup and Infrastructure
Once regulatory approvals are in place, the structure must transition from a legally compliant setup to a functioning investment platform. This is the stage where the fund becomes operationally real.
In practical terms, this involves opening IFSC-based bank accounts, onboarding fund administrators, appointing auditors and tax advisors, and establishing systems for valuation, reporting, and investor communication. These elements are not standalone tasks—they collectively define how the fund will function on a day-to-day basis.
A critical aspect at this stage is the selection of service providers. Fund administrators, in particular, play a central role in NAV computation, investor reporting, and compliance support. Similarly, auditors and tax advisors must be familiar with the IFSC regulatory and tax framework to avoid downstream inefficiencies.
From a regulatory perspective, this stage also reinforces the substance requirement. The FME is expected to demonstrate that it has the operational capability to manage funds in a controlled and compliant manner, supported by appropriate systems and institutional support.
At a practical level, this is where execution discipline becomes visible. A well-structured operational setup not only ensures regulatory compliance but also enhances investor confidence—particularly for offshore investors who rely heavily on the credibility of the platform and its service ecosystem.
Step 11: Fundraising and First Close
With the structure fully operational, the fund transitions into its most commercially critical phase—capital raising.
This involves engaging with prospective investors, articulating the investment strategy, and negotiating commercial terms. From a documentation standpoint, investor onboarding is completed through execution of contribution agreements and satisfaction of KYC and onboarding requirements.
The milestone to watch at this stage is the first close. It marks the point at which binding capital commitments are secured and the fund becomes operationally active from an investment perspective. Until the first close is achieved, the fund remains a structured vehicle without deployable capital.
In practice, the success of this stage depends not just on market conditions, but also on the credibility of the structure built in earlier stages—particularly the quality of the PPM, governance framework, and service provider ecosystem.
Step 12: Ongoing Compliance and Regulatory Discipline
Once the fund is live, the focus shifts from setup to sustained regulatory compliance.
Both the FME and the AIF operate within a continuous compliance framework, with clearly defined obligations at each level. At the FME level, this includes maintaining the prescribed net worth, undertaking periodic filings with IFSCA, and ensuring adherence to governance and risk management standards.
At the AIF level, obligations centre around investor disclosures, preparation of audited financial statements, and periodic reporting in line with regulatory requirements and the PPM.
Importantly, this is not a light-touch regime. The IFSC framework is designed to align with global standards, and regulatory expectations are comparable to other established fund jurisdictions.
From a practical standpoint, compliance in IFSC is not just about meeting minimum requirements—it is integral to maintaining investor confidence and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the fund platform.
Cost Framework: Platform vs Own FME
Based on actual engagement structures in GIFT IFSC, the cost dynamics between the Platform Model and the Own FME Model differ meaningfully, both in terms of upfront investment and long-term economics.
From a one-time setup perspective, the Own FME Model typically falls in the range of USD 50,000 to USD 60,000. In the GIFT IFSC ecosystem, consultants and advisors generally price this across multiple components—FME setup and licensing (around USD 15,000–20,000), AIF structuring and documentation including PPM (USD 15,000–30,000 depending on complexity), and regulatory fees payable to IFSCA (approximately USD 10,000–15,000), along with trustee, registration, and initial operational costs.
In comparison, the Platform Model usually requires a lower upfront outlay in the range of USD 35,000 to USD 45,000, primarily because the FME layer is already in place and the fund is launched under an existing licensed manager. Consultant fees in such cases are largely limited to fund structuring, documentation, and onboarding onto the platform.
While the platform route appears more cost-efficient at the entry stage, this comparison needs to be viewed in context. The lower upfront cost comes with ongoing platform fees and, in many cases, AUM-linked charges, which can materially increase the cost as the fund scales.
From a practical standpoint, consultants in GIFT IFSC generally advise clients to evaluate this decision not purely on initial cost, but on expected AUM, fundraising timelines, and long-term strategy. For smaller or first-time funds, the platform model offers a faster and lighter entry. For managers building a scalable fund platform, the own FME structure tends to be more cost-efficient over time despite the higher initial investment.
Annual Operating Cost
This is where the real distinction between the two models becomes evident. While the upfront cost difference is visible, the annual operating cost fundamentally alters the long-term economics of the structure.
For an Own FME, the annual operating cost in GIFT IFSC typically ranges between USD 50,000 to USD 75,000. This includes compensation for the Principal Officer and Compliance Officer, office and infrastructure expenses, audit and tax costs, ongoing compliance support, and IFSCA annual fees (approximately USD 5,000).
However, this headline number needs to be viewed in context. The mandatory net worth requirement of USD 500,000 is not a sunk cost—it remains the asset of the sponsor and is typically deployed in low-risk instruments such as fixed deposits. At an assumed yield of around 4% to 5%, this can generate approximately USD 20,000–25,000 annually, effectively reducing the net operating cost to roughly USD 25,000 to USD 50,000.
In contrast, the Platform Model carries a structurally different cost profile. While fixed annual costs typically hover around USD 55,000 to USD 65,000, the key differentiator is the presence of platform fees and AUM-linked charges.
Most platform arrangements include an AUM-based fee, commonly in the range of 0.40% to 0.50%. At a fund size of approximately ₹200 crore, this alone can translate into USD 80,000–100,000 annually, pushing the total annual cost to USD 140,000+.
The implication is clear. While the platform model may appear efficient at lower AUM levels, it becomes significantly more expensive as the fund scales. The Own FME model, on the other hand, has a relatively stable cost base, making it far more efficient for managers with medium to long-term growth plans.
From a strategic perspective, this is often the decisive factor. The choice between the two models is less about initial affordability and more about how the cost structure behaves as AUM grows.
Strategic Interpretation
At a surface level, the platform model offers a faster and more capital-efficient entry into the IFSC ecosystem. However, this efficiency is largely front-loaded.
In the early stages—particularly during initial fundraising—the platform route works well because it avoids the fixed cost and capital commitment associated with setting up an independent FME. But as AUM builds, the cost structure begins to shift. The AUM-linked fee, which may initially appear marginal, gradually becomes the dominant cost driver and starts eroding fund-level economics.
In contrast, the Own FME model operates on a relatively fixed cost base, with no revenue share or platform dependency. As a result, the marginal cost of managing additional capital reduces significantly over time, making it structurally more efficient at scale.
This is why, in practice, many fund managers use the platform route as a transitional strategy—entering the market quickly, building a track record, and then migrating to their own FME once the fund reaches meaningful scale.
The decision, therefore, is not binary. It is a function of timing, AUM visibility, and long-term intent. For managers building a serious, scalable fund platform, the own-FME route is not just a regulatory choice—it is a strategic one.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
In practice, most delays and inefficiencies in the FME–AIF setup process arise from a familiar set of errors.
A common issue is underestimating the complexity of documentation—particularly the PPM and policy framework—which often leads to repeated regulatory queries and avoidable delays. Similarly, treating key managerial roles, such as the Principal Officer and Compliance Officer, as nominal appointments can significantly weaken the application, given the level of scrutiny IFSCA places on these positions.
Delays in SEZ approvals and a fragmented approach to operational setup are also frequent problem areas. Many applicants approach infrastructure, staffing, and systems as an afterthought, whereas the regulator increasingly expects demonstrable substance from the outset.
Another critical but often overlooked mistake is engaging advisors who are not closely aligned with the GIFT IFSC ecosystem. While the regulatory framework may appear straightforward on paper, its practical application involves nuances—both at the SEZ level and within IFSCA interactions—that are best understood by professionals operating within the IFSC environment. Advisors without on-ground experience in GIFT City may inadvertently lead to inefficient structuring, misaligned documentation, and prolonged regulatory back-and-forth.
A weak or generic PPM, in particular, is a high-risk area. It not only delays approval but also creates ambiguity in investor expectations and governance, which can have long-term implications beyond the regulatory stage.
From a practical standpoint, most of these issues are avoidable with the right preparation and the right advisory ecosystem.
FAQs
How long does it take to set up an FME and AIF in GIFT IFSC?
Typically, setting up an FME and launching an AIF in GIFT IFSC takes around 3 to 4 months. This timeline depends on documentation readiness, speed of SEZ approvals, and the quality of interaction with IFSCA during the licensing and PPM review process.
What is the minimum capital requirement for setting up an FME?
A Registered FME (Non-Retail) must maintain a minimum net worth of USD 500,000. This capital must be infused and demonstrated at the time of licensing and maintained on an ongoing basis as part of regulatory compliance.
Can one FME manage multiple AIFs in GIFT IFSC?
Yes. One of the key advantages of setting up your own FME is that it can manage multiple AIFs under a single licensed platform, making it highly scalable for fund managers planning multiple strategies or successive fund launches.
Is GIFT IFSC suitable for first-time fund managers?
Yes, GIFT IFSC is accessible to first-time fund managers. However, many choose to start with a platform model to reduce upfront cost and regulatory complexity, and later transition to their own FME once they achieve scale and track record.
What is the difference between AIF registration in India and GIFT IFSC?
In GIFT IFSC, there is no separate AIF registration approval process like mainland India. Instead, the fund is approved through the filing and review of the Private Placement Memorandum (PPM) with IFSCA, making the process relatively streamlined and documentation-driven.
Do I need to be physically present in GIFT IFSC to set up an FME?
Yes. IFSCA expects the FME to demonstrate real operational presence, including an office within GIFT IFSC and qualified personnel such as a Principal Officer and Compliance Officer. Purely virtual or shell setups are not permitted.
What is the biggest cost driver in the platform model vs own FME?
In the platform model, the biggest cost driver is typically the AUM-linked fee (around 0.40%–0.50%), which increases as the fund scales. In contrast, the own FME model has a more fixed cost structure, making it more efficient at higher AUM levels.
Conclusion
Setting up an FME and AIF in GIFT IFSC is not merely a regulatory exercise—it is a foundational structuring decision that defines how your fund will operate, scale, and compete over time.
At one level, the choice appears straightforward. The platform model offers speed, lower upfront commitment, and a relatively frictionless entry into the IFSC ecosystem. But this convenience comes with embedded constraints—both in terms of cost structure and operational control.
In contrast, building an independent FME requires greater upfront investment—of capital, time, and regulatory effort. However, it provides something far more valuable: ownership of the platform, flexibility in structuring, and significantly better economics as the fund scales.
The real question, therefore, is not which model is cheaper—but which model aligns with your long-term intent. For managers testing the waters, the platform route is pragmatic. For those building a serious, scalable fund management business, the independent FME structure is strategically superior.
In fund management, structure is not an administrative choice—it is a strategic lever. And over time, the cost of getting that decision wrong compounds far more than the cost of getting it right.
About the Author
Prashant Kumar is a Company Secretary, Published Author, and a seasoned professional in the field of corporate and financial services regulation. He serves as Company Secretary & Compliance Officer at Global Horizons Capital Advisors (IFSC) Private Limited, based in GIFT City, and advises on corporate, regulatory, and transactional matters.
He specialises in GIFT IFSC structuring, fund setup (FME & AIF), corporate governance, and regulatory compliance, advising fund managers, startups, and institutions on building globally aligned and compliant structures.
He can be reached for professional discussions on GIFT IFSC, fund structuring, and regulatory strategy at +91 9821008011 or prashant.kumar@global-horizons.in.
