Acknowledgement of Country

Thanks, Aleks. Hi everyone. Good to be here.

I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional owners and custodians of the land, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples. And I pay my respects to elders past and present – and extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today.

Introduction

I’d like to also thank Melinda Kee for your generosity in sharing your harrowing story earlier, and for your ongoing advocacy for victims of both Shield and First Guardian.

It is clear that the matters involving Shield and First Guardian will dominate discussion here today – and that’s entirely appropriate. While it’s also clear that there are many differing views about who bears responsibility and what reforms would best prevent similar things from happening in the future, let’s remember the people at the heart of this. People like Melinda and the others that she spoke about.

More than 11,000 people – ordinary people trying to set themselves up for retirement – invested over $1 billion in Shield and First Guardian. That’s why addressing the conduct that led to what we’ve seen there is one of ASIC’s biggest priorities. And it’s also why everybody in this room should share an interest in supporting reforms that can better protect consumers and investors in the future.

Shield and First Guardian

When I spoke at this event last year, I made a brief mention of our work on the Shield Master Fund. I said it was consistent with a pattern of conduct that we were seeing involving other entities.

What I said at the time was limited. Because there were limits on what I could say. But it was a hint at the scale of work we had underway within ASIC. And hopefully, that picture is much clearer now, with the names Shield and First Guardian having now gained national notoriety.

And as our work on these matters has progressed, our determination to hold those responsible to account has only grown stronger.

So, just over two weeks after last year’s event, ASIC obtained interim orders freezing the assets of the First Guardian Master Fund, responsible entity Falcon Capital and Falcon director, David Anderson^[1].

That same month, in February, we undertook a three-day search warrant operation with the AFP [Australian Federal Police] across multiple locations in Victoria and Queensland.

And in addition to the interim orders involving First Guardian, Falcon and Mr Anderson, we also obtained interim orders freezing certain assets of financial advisers Ferras Merhi^[2] (of Venture Egg and Financial Services Group Australia) and Osama Saad^[3] (of Aus Super Compare and Atlas Marketing).

In March, we obtained orders freezing the assets of Rashid Alshakshir in relation to the provision of marketing services, including lead generation, in connection with both Shield and First Guardian^[4].

In April, we obtained orders for Falcon Capital and First Guardian to be wound up and for the appointment of a receiver to David Anderson’s personal property^[5].

In June, ASIC cancelled the AFS licence of Financial Services Group Australia and permanently banned its responsible manager^[6].

We also secured travel restraints against Falcon Capital directors, David Anderson and Simon Selimaj, along with asset-freezing orders against Mr Selimaj^[7].

In July, we secured travel restraint orders prohibiting Ferras Merhi and Osama Saad from leaving or attempting to leave Australia for a period.

Between June and July, we banned five financial advisers of MWL Financial Services in relation to financial advice provided on Shield.

In August, we obtained orders appointing receivers over the property of Falcon Capital director, Simon Selimaj.

We cancelled the AFS licence of MWL, banned MWL’s director^[8], compliance manager and responsible manager^[9], and banned a former UGC and MWL financial adviser in relation to advice provided on Shield ^[10].

We also commenced civil penalty proceedings against Equity Trustees, alleging due diligence failures relating to Shield – subsequently amending those proceedings to seek compensation for investors^[11].

Additionally, we sought leave to expand our civil proceedings against Ferras Merhi, alleging he engaged in unconscionable conduct, failed to act in the best interest of clients, gave conflicted advice and provided defective statements of advice^[12].

And we sought injunctions prohibiting Mr Merhi from any involvement in a financial services business or the marketing of financial products, the appointment of a receiver to Mr Merhi’s personal property and provisional liquidators to his associated companies.

In September, we commenced civil penalty proceedings against Macquarie Investment Management for contraventions relating to Shield^[13].

In October, we obtained interim orders restraining Mr Merhi from operating within the financial services industry and obtained orders for the appointment of a receiver to provide a report and a provisional liquidator to his associated entities, Venture Egg Financial Services and United Financial Advice^[14].

In November, we took three separate actions on the same day, against SQM Research^[15], against MWL Financial Services, now in liquidation, along with its former director and lead generator, Imperial Capital Group^[16] and against Interprac^[17]. ASIC is seeking declarations, civil penalties, and orders to restrain Interprac from carrying on a financial services business.

In December, we commenced civil penalty proceedings against Diversa^[18] and Netwealth^[19] in relation to First Guardian.

We also banned a former financial adviser of MWL Financial Services and former UGC Head of Advice, in relation to financial advice provided on Shield^[20].

And then finally, earlier this month, we banned another MWL Financial Services financial adviser^[21].

So, that brings us up to the present day – where, in summary, we’ve got 12 cases underway against 21 defendants in connection with our investigations. And that includes all four of the super trustees involved.

Two of those trustees, Macquarie and Netwealth, have admitted to failures in relation to Shield and First Guardian, respectively. And as a result of ASIC’s work, they have returned $422 million combined to around 4,000 members. And we’re, of course, seeking compensation for investors from the remaining two trustees: Equity and Diversa.

And in case that brief run-through of key events in the past 12 months does not make it clear, these matters are among the most complex and resource-intensive in ASIC’s history. And the work involved in building a case for enforcement action is painstaking, time-consuming and vitally important.

But we are far from done. There are more cases to come.

At present, we’ve got nearly 50 staff working on 26 investigations, involving matters that are either before the courts or are ongoing investigations, involving numerous entities and individuals connected to Shield and First Guardian.

We’ve also been liaising with investors and investor groups and working closely with AFCA [the Australian Financial Complaints Authority] and Super Consumers Australia to help impacted investors understand what they can do, including potential pathways to compensation.

In February, we took further steps to support impacted investors – because we’ve noted that fewer than 2,000 had lodged complaints with AFCA – and we commenced sending additional information to investors, including access to a dedicated consumer support website and complaint options^[22].

Ongoing surveillance

So, that heavy program of enforcement work complements other ongoing work in the area of surveillance.

And our thematic reviews, or surveillances, are a key part of our approach to regulation of the sector. We use them to assess levels of compliance in particular areas. They inform our consumer warnings and messages to the industry about areas of concern. But they’re also, importantly, a key source of intelligence to inform our enforcement action.

And over the past few years, we’ve released a few key reports on issues relating to Shield and First Guardian.

In February 2024, we released Report 779 on superannuation choice products, calling on trustees, advisers and licensees to prioritise performance throughout the product lifecycle and improve transparency about choice investment options that fail to meet performance expectations.

In May 2024, we published the findings from our review into cold calling for super-switching business models, warning of adverse consumer outcomes from unsuitable financial advice and highlighting concerns that some advisers, licensees and super trustees were benefitting from these high-pressure tactics and click-bait advertisements.

In the same month, we released Report 781, highlighting deficiencies in trustee oversight of inappropriate advice fee deductions, particularly by unscrupulous operators, including cold calling businesses.

And in November 2025, we released Report 824 following a review of SMSF [self-managed super fund] establishment advice, which raised significant concerns about risks to retirement savings as a result of poor advice.

And just last week, we announced the commencement of a review of financial advice licensees that use lead generation services^[23].

That review will identify financial advice businesses that use lead generation services to understand the nature of these arrangements and, where appropriate, take disruptive or enforcement action.

We’re also very intentionally using this work to raise consumers’ awareness about what lead generation services are and the features they should be alert to.

We’re encouraging consumers to exercise caution when engaging with businesses who use lead generation – and we’re giving them the resources to help them do that, including a list of businesses, websites, authorised representatives, financial advisers and financial services licensees involved in lead generation.

That list is available on our Moneysmart website – and we will be updating it through the course of our review.

And to be clear, we’re not saying that businesses and entities named there, or the individuals associated with them, have done anything wrong. But any lead generators that mislead consumers, use high-pressure tactics or provide financial services without a licence may be contravening the law.

So, participants – including financial advisers and advice licensees – should be on notice that we’ll be seeking to understand how they are complying with their obligations, given the harmful practices that we have all observed.

And this review is only the latest in a long-running program of work to address practices involving high-risk super-switching – and includes a separate, ongoing review, where we’re looking at the steps that superannuation trustees have taken to detect and disrupt these activities.

Closing the regulatory gaps

Now, while we recognise that we can’t regulate these problems away, it is very much ASIC’s view that sensible reforms are needed to better protect consumers in the future.

So, we have been engaging with Government and others, including many in this room, on what can be done to make the system safer, based on what we’ve learned through our extensive investigations.

We welcome the Government’s proposals to enhance the oversight and governance of managed investment schemes, released just under two weeks ago.

Those proposals include an expansion of ASIC’s data-collection powers for retail managed investment schemes, something ASIC has long identified as a priority for reform. Other proposals include improved visibility of super-switching, which would place an obligation on super trustees to report to ASIC certain suspicious or anomalous patterns of behaviour.

The Government has also indicated that, in the coming months, it will consult on a series of additional reforms. These include proposals to introduce a waiting period to slow down potentially high-risk super-switching; strengthen platform governance; and stop inappropriate lead generation, including possible changes to anti-hawking legislation.

And we really welcome the priority that the Government is placing on these reforms and the breadth of proposals that it is considering.

Financial capability and consumer protection

And while that work continues, we’re stepping up our assistance for people looking for help today.

We are conscious that lead generators only have a business model because many people want to feel more confident that they’re doing the right thing to prepare for retirement. And our research has shown that only a third of pre-retirees are confident that they’ll have a financially comfortable retirement.

Thankfully, helping people in these situations is something that’s very familiar to ASIC. Something we’ve been doing for over 25 years through the trusted program that we have in Moneysmart.

Our Moneysmart website was visited by over 11 million visitors last year – and that demonstrates how important it is as a source of independent financial information for Australians.

But even so, we’ve got our work cut out for us. We’re up against an array of ads on social media, increasingly generated by AI, inducing people to invest in financial products that are portrayed, often, as safe and trustworthy but in reality, involve levels of risk that are unsuitable for most people.

So, we’re working to expand the reach and impact that we have across social media. We’re also revitalising the Moneysmart website to make it easier for people to find the information that they need – including rebuilding our super and retirement tools. And running consumer campaigns to raise awareness of the availability of the tools and information on Moneysmart.

And then, as part of that, we’re stepping up our warnings to consumers.

The strong warnings that accompanied the announcement of our lead generation review last week are just the latest example of that. They build on our earlier consumer warning campaigns related to high-pressure super-switching conduct in May 2024^[24] and July 2025^[25].

And everybody should expect to see a lot more from ASIC in that space.

Making the system safer for consumers

So, finally, that brings me to the role of the people in this room. Because making the system safer for consumers is a collective responsibility – not one that rests solely with ASIC.

Most consumers who seek financial advice do so because they value the peace of mind that comes with a professional opinion. They put their trust in the expertise and integrity of advisers.

And those simple expectations – expertise, integrity, diligence and due care – are reflected in advisers’ core obligations: that they’re suitably qualified; that they provide appropriate advice; and, most importantly, that they provide advice that’s in the client’s best interests.

While the laws governing the provision of financial services are complex, the underlying obligations are quite simple. And it’s those obligations that ASIC is focused on in our work.

For licensees, that means acting efficiently, honestly and fairly.

For fund operators, as well as that, it means fulfilling your obligations as a responsible entity and licensee, including acting in the best interests of scheme members.

For platform operators, that means performing your obligations honestly and with reasonable care and diligence.

For super trustees, it means looking out for your members’ best interests.

And finally, for ASIC, it means ensuring compliance with these obligations – and addressing misconduct where we see it.

And you’ll see that focus reflected across all aspects of our work.

In our advice to consumers.

In our ongoing surveillance of lead generation advice models and super trustees’ oversight of high-risk super-switching.

And in our extensive litigation on the matters arising from Shield and First Guardian.

Advice licensees, advisers and super trustees that have robust processes for ensuring compliance with these obligations have nothing to fear from ASIC. But those who don’t – especially where this results in widespread harm to consumers – should expect to encounter the full force of the law.

I hope that’s a message that everyone in this room is happy to hear.

And thank you for listening to me. I’m now happy to take a few questions.

 

^[1] 25-027MR Federal Court freezes assets of First Guardian Master Fund and director David Anderson

^[2] 25-024MR Federal Court freezes assets of Melbourne financial adviser, Ferras Merhi of Venture Egg and FSGA

^[3] 25-023MR Federal Court freezes assets of Osama Saad, former director of Aus Super Compare and Atlas Marketing

^[4] 25-043MR Federal Court freezes assets of Rashid Alshakshir in connection with ASIC’s investigations into Shield and First Guardian

^[5] 25-055MR Court orders Falcon Capital and the First Guardian Master Fund to be wound up

^[6] 25-102MR ASIC cancels AFS licence of Financial Services Group Australia and permanently bans its responsible manager

^[7] 25-117MR ASIC secures travel restraint and asset freezing orders in connection with its investigation into First Guardian

^[8] 25-181MR ASIC cancels AFS licence of MWL Financial Services and bans MWL’s director

^[9] 25-180MR ASIC bans compliance manager Robert John Tohill of MWL Financial Services

^[10] 25-245MR ASIC bans former UGC and MWL financial adviser Jovan Videkanic for 7 years

^[11] 25-176MR ASIC sues Equity Trustees alleging due diligence failures relating to Shield

^[12] 25-184MR ASIC takes further action against Ferras Merhi over First Guardian and Shield superannuation advice

^[13] 25-215MR Macquarie admits to Shield contraventions and commits to pay affected members

^[14] 25-249MR ASIC secures interim court orders barring Ferras Merhi from financial services activities

^[15] 25-275MR ASIC sues SQM Research alleging misleading reports related to Shield

^[16] 25-276MR ASIC takes action against MWL Financial Services, former director Nicholas Maikousis, and Imperial Capital Group Australia over alleged Shield advice failures

^[17] 25-274MR ASIC sues Interprac over alleged Shield and First Guardian licensee failures

^[18] 25-296MR ASIC sues Diversa Trustees alleging failures relating to First Guardian

^[19] 25-307MR Netwealth admits to First Guardian failures and agrees to compensate affected members $100 million

^[20] 25-312MR ASIC bans former MWL financial services adviser and former UGC Head of Advice Louis Van Coppenhagen for 7 years

^[21] 26-023MR ASIC bans former MWL Financial Services adviser Neil McPherson for 4 years

^[22] 26-019MR ASIC takes further steps to support Australians impacted by First Guardian and Shield collapse

^[23] 26-029MR ASIC commences new review of advice licensees that use lead generation services

^[24] 24-092MR ASIC issues warning over dodgy cold calling operators and online baiting tactics

^[25] 25-120MR Consumer alert – ASIC warns about pushy sales tactics urging people to make quick superannuation switches