Asian investor counsel for India
Cross-border investment activity between Asia and India frequently intersects with US legal frameworks. An Asian investor acquiring an interest in an Indian entity that has US subsidiaries, US-based investors, or US securities exposure may encounter requirements under US securities laws, US anti-corruption statutes, and US-India bilateral agreements. Similarly, an Indian enterprise receiving investment from Asian sources may need to address US regulatory obligations when its operations or capital structures touch US markets. Law Offices of SRIS, P.C., a US law firm practicing since 1997, provides US-side counsel on these cross-border matters. The firm collaborates with India-admitted Of Counsel on India-law dimensions, maintaining a clear jurisdictional division between US-law and India-law responsibilities.
Cross-Border Investment Matters Between the United States and India
Cross-border investment counsel involving India and the United States spans several distinct legal domains. On the US side, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1 et seq.) imposes anti-bribery and books-and-records obligations on US issuers, domestic concerns, and certain foreign persons acting in US territory. An Asian investor structuring a transaction that involves a US-listed Indian company or a US-based investment vehicle must evaluate FCPA exposure across the deal’s jurisdictional touchpoints. US securities regulations administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission may also apply when the investment involves US-registered securities or US-based limited partners.
On the India side, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) effective 1 July 2024, governs criminal liability including fraud and corruption offenses. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on the same date, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These statutory changes affect how Indian criminal matters are investigated, prosecuted, and adjudicated. India is a contracting party to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention (in force for India since 14 July 2005), which means public documents from other contracting states may be authenticated by apostille rather than consular legalization. India is also a contracting party to the 1965 Hague Service Convention (in force for India since 2007), though India has objected to Article 10; service of process must be made through India’s designated Central Authority, and service by postal channels or private process server is not permitted.
How US-India Cross-Border Matters Are Structured
When a matter involves both US law and India law, the firm maintains a jurisdictional division of responsibility. The US-admitted attorneys of Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. handle all US-law aspects, including FCPA analysis, US securities compliance, and US-side transactional documentation. For India-law matters, the firm collaborates with Sowmya R, Of Counsel for India matters, who is admitted to practice law in India (Enrolled, State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Enrollment No. MP2285/2014) and is not admitted in any US state bar. Her role is limited to India-law matters in collaboration with the US-admitted attorneys of the firm. This structure ensures that each jurisdiction’s law is addressed by an attorney admitted in that jurisdiction.
Document authentication between the United States and India proceeds under the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention. A US public document destined for use in India may be authenticated by apostille from the competent authority in the issuing US state, rather than requiring consular legalization. The same applies in reverse: an Indian public document bearing an apostille from the designated Indian competent authority is generally accepted in US proceedings. For service of process, the 1965 Hague Service Convention governs transmission between the two countries, with India’s Central Authority serving as the required channel given India’s Article 10 objection. The timing of Central Authority service varies by case volume and the specific documentation required.
About the Attorneys
Atchuthan Sriskandarajah, Esq. (Mr. Sris) is the owner and founder of Law Offices of SRIS, P.C., practicing since 1997. He is admitted to practice law in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. Mr. Sris serves as the responsible US attorney for the firm’s cross-border practice and handles US-law aspects of US-India investment matters. He testified before the Virginia House Courts of Justice Committee in support of 2019 HB 635 (chief patron Del. David Bulova), the bill that became the 2019 revision to Va. Code § 20-107.3(g).
For India-law dimensions, the firm collaborates with Sowmya R, Of Counsel for India matters. Ms. Sowmya is admitted to practice law in India (Enrolled, State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Enrollment No. MP2285/2014) and is not admitted in any US state bar. Her role is limited to India-law matters in collaboration with the US-admitted attorneys of the firm. All US-law aspects of a cross-border matter are handled by Mr. Sris and the US-admitted attorneys of Law Offices of SRIS, P.C.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does an Asian investor counsel for India handle?
Asian investor counsel for India addresses the US legal dimensions of cross-border investment transactions involving Asian investors and Indian entities or assets. This includes FCPA compliance analysis when a transaction involves US jurisdictional touchpoints, US securities law considerations for investments in US-listed Indian companies, and US-India treaty framework analysis. The US-admitted attorney handles US-law aspects, while India-law matters are addressed by India-admitted Of Counsel. The division of responsibility is jurisdictional: each attorney practices only in the jurisdiction where they are admitted.
Is India a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction?
India is not a contracting party to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. As of May 2026, India has not acceded to the Convention. The Convention’s return mechanism does not apply to a child wrongfully removed to or retained in India. Cases involving children taken to India proceed under Indian custody law rather than the Hague return framework. A parent seeking the return of a child from India must work through the Indian court system with India-admitted counsel. Treaty membership status can change; current signatory status should be verified with the Hague Conference on Private International Law at hcch.net.
How does the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention apply to documents from India?
India has been a contracting party to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention since 14 July 2005. A public document issued in India and bearing an apostille from the designated Indian competent authority is generally accepted for use in US proceedings without further consular legalization. Similarly, a US public document authenticated by apostille from the competent authority in the issuing state is generally accepted in India. The apostille certifies the authenticity of the signature, the capacity in which the signatory acted, and the identity of any seal or stamp on the document. It does not certify the content of the underlying document.
How is service of process handled for India under the Hague Service Convention?
India is a contracting party to the 1965 Hague Service Convention, in force for India since 2007, but has objected to Article 10. Service of process on a defendant in India must be made through India’s designated Central Authority. Service by postal channels or by private process server is not permitted under India’s Article 10 objection. The requesting party submits the documents to India’s Central Authority, which arranges service under Indian law and returns a certificate of service or non-service. The timing of Central Authority processing varies by case volume and the completeness of the submitted documentation.
How are Indian marriages recognized in US courts?
Under the doctrine of lex loci celebrationis, a marriage validly contracted under Indian law is presumptively recognized as valid by US courts, subject to narrow public-policy exceptions. The party seeking recognition typically needs to authenticate the Indian marriage certificate. Because India is a contracting party to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention, an Indian marriage certificate bearing an apostille from the designated Indian competent authority is generally accepted in US proceedings. The US court applies the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated to determine its validity, not the law of the US forum state. Public-policy exceptions are narrow and rarely applied to marriages that were lawful where celebrated.
What changes did the BNS bring to Indian criminal law in 2024?
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) effective 1 July 2024, modernizing India’s principal criminal statute. The BNS restructured and renumbered many offenses that were previously codified in the IPC. Alongside the BNS, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. For cross-border matters involving Indian criminal law, any reference to a former IPC section should be dual-cited with the corresponding BNS section. The substantive elements of many core offenses remain similar, but the section numbering and certain procedural frameworks have changed.