FSCP Outcomes Register
This register contains details of the outcomes of decisions of the Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP).
The register will usually not disclose the name of the relevant provider involved in a matter unless the outcome is required to be displayed on the Financial Advisers Register. If the outcome is not required to be displayed on the Financial Advisers Register, the relevant provider is given a randomly selected pseudonym and will not be identifiable on the Outcomes Register.
Where the FSCP makes no adverse findings in relation to a matter, the register will include a summary of that finding, usually without disclosing the name of the relevant provider.
Please see FSCP’s Privacy Policy and ASIC’s Privacy Policy for information about how FSCP and ASIC handle personal information, your rights to seek access to and correct personal information, and how to complain about breaches of privacy.
2025
Date of decision |
Name of relevant provider (if applicable) |
Media release (if applicable) |
FSCP instrument |
Summary of decision |
---|---|---|---|---|
17/06/2025 |
Mr V |
N/A |
Written direction under s921L(1)(a)(iv) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider is the sole director of a company that holds an Australian financial services licence, and is the responsible manager and key person under that licence. The relevant provider recommended in a Statement of Advice presented to Client A on 8 February 2022, Client B on 18 February 2022 and Client C on 30 March 2023 that each client switch their existing superannuation into a new product and invest part of it in a financial product associated with the relevant provider. The Sitting Panel determined that in giving that advice, the relevant provider contravened s961G of the Corporations Act 2001 by giving advice that was not appropriate, and s961J(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 by prioritising the relevant provider’s interests over the clients’ interests. |
19/05/2025 |
Mr Q |
N/A |
The matter was referred to the Sitting Panel due to concerns that the relevant provider had failed to comply with their continuing professional development requirements (CPD). That is, complete a total of 40 hours of CPD, including minimum hours across each of the mandatory categories, during the licensee’s CPD year. The Sitting Panel was satisfied that the relevant provider had contravened s921BA(4) and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act. The Sitting Panel considered that formal admonishment of the relevant provider, by way of a reprimand, was required. There were no extenuating circumstances, and the relevant provider was tardy in rectifying their outstanding CPD hours. |
|
19/05/2025 |
Mr X |
N/A |
The matter was referred to the Sitting Panel due to concerns that the relevant provider had failed to comply with their continuing professional development requirements (CPD). That is, complete a total of 40 hours of CPD, including minimum hours across each of the mandatory categories, during the licensee’s CPD year. The Sitting Panel was satisfied that the relevant provider had contravened s921BA(4) and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act. Rectification of shortfall occurred within reasonable period of time. However, the Sitting Panel considered that a reprimand was needed to emphasise the importance of CPD to maintaining the standards of the profession, as well as the public’s trust and confidence in the profession. |
|
12/05/2025 |
Ms A |
N/A |
The relevant provider gave advice in June 2022 recommending a client make a superannuation non-concessional contribution of $145,000 for the 2022-23 financial year. When giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to take into account that the client had previously received advice in February 2021, by another adviser authorised by the same AFS licensee as the relevant provider, which recommended the client make a lump sum NCC of $299,000 in the 2020-21 financial year. That triggered a “bring-forward arrangement” which reduced the client’s NCC cap to $1,000 for the next two financial years. As a result of following the advice, the client was notified by the ATO in September 2023 that she needed to withdraw $157,117.14 from her superannuation and that her 2022-23 income tax assessment would be amended to include her associated earnings amount of $17,134. The Sitting Panel believed that the relevant provider contravened sections 961B(1), 961G and 921E(3) specifically they did not demonstrate compliance with the Code of Ethics’ value of diligence and breached Standard 5. |
|
10/04/2025 |
Mr N |
N/A |
Written direction pursuant to s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider gave advice in June 2022 recommending a client make a superannuation non-concessional contribution of $110,000 for the 2021-22 financial year and $301,681 (total) for the 2022-23 financial year. When giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to take into account that as at 5 May 2022, the client was in year two of a three year “bring-forward arrangement” and her remaining balance (of the NCC cap) was $124.65. As a result of following the advice, the client was notified by the ATO on 30 November 2022, that she made an excess NCC of $109,775.35 in 2021-22. In addition, the client was notified by the ATO on 19 November 2023, that she needed to withdraw $312,301.21 from her superannuation and that her 2022-23 income tax assessment would be amended to include her associated earnings amount of $39,174. Alternatively, her excess NCC would be taxed at 47% and the ATO would send her an excess NCC tax assessment for $131,131.55. The Sitting Panel believed that the relevant provider contravened sections 961B(1), 961G and 921E(3) specifically they did not demonstrate compliance with the Code of Ethics’ value of diligence and Standard 5. |
14/04/2025
|
Mr I |
N/A |
N/A |
The Sitting Panel has decided not to take action against the relevant provider. While the Sitting Panel was satisfied that the relevant provider had contravened s921BA(4) and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act, the Sitting Panel decided that no action was warranted because of the extenuating circumstances that led to the non-compliance. The Sitting Panel is of the view that the relevant provider’s prompt actions in rectifying the breach show that they understand the CPD obligations and will comply with them in the future. |
31/03/2025 |
Mr U |
N/A |
Written direction pursuant to s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider gave advice in April 2023 recommending a client make a superannuation non-concessional contribution of $299,000 for the 2022-23 financial year. When giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to identify and take into account that the client had previously made a lump sum non-concessional contribution of $300,000 in the 2020-21 financial year, which reduced the client’s non-concessional contribution cap to nil for the next two financial years. As a result of accepting the advice, the client had to withdraw $330,221.68 from their superannuation and incurred additional tax liabilities of $5,552.58 on associated earnings. The Sitting Panel believed that the relevant provider contravened sections 961B(1), 961G and 921E(3) specifically they did not demonstrate compliance with the Code of Ethics’ value of diligence and breached Standard 5. |
05/02/2025 |
Glenn Paul MEILAK |
N/A |
Written order pursuant to 921K(1)(d) and 921L(1)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel has made a registration prohibition order under s921(K)(1)(d) and under s921L(1)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 cancelling Mr Glenn Paul Meilak’s registration as a relevant provider from 10 February 2025 until after 10 February 2027. The Sitting Panel had proposed a 2-year deregistration and Mr Meilak accepted the Sitting Panel’s proposal. The disciplinary action was taken as a result of advices that Mr Meilak gave to his clients recommending that they set up self-managed superannuation funds. Mr Meilak exhibited conduct that was systemic, displayed a lack of care and a level of incompetence in providing the advice to his clients. The Sitting panel confirmed that it reasonably believed that Mr Meilak had contravened the best interest duty, the appropriate advice obligation, failed to prioritise his clients’ interest over his own and made misleading statements. In addition, the Sitting Panel found that Mr Meilak had not complied with the values of competence and fairness and Standards 1, 5 and 9 in the Code of Ethics. |
28/01/2025 |
Mr D |
N/A |
Written direction pursuant to s921L(1)(a)(i) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel has issued a written direction under s921L(1)(a)(i) of the Corporations Act 2001 requiring the relevant provider to undertake at least five hours of continuing professional education covering retirement planning in the next 12 months. The education must be capable of being objectively verified by a competent source, not be provided by the relevant provider’s licensee, be in addition to the relevant provider’s existing continuing professional obligations, and must be approved by ASIC before it is undertaken. The Sitting Panel’s decision arises from the relevant provider’s failure to comply with s961B(1), s961G and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 when giving super contribution advice to a client. As a result of the advice, the client exceeded the concessional contribution cap by approximately $15,000. The breach occurred because the relevant provider failed to take into account the client’s defined benefit scheme even though income the client received from the scheme was referred to on several occasions in the Statement of Advice. In relation to the contravention of s921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001, the Sitting Panel is satisfied that the relevant provider did not demonstrate the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics’ Value of Diligence, and failed to comply with Standard 5 which includes the requirement that all advice a relevant provider gives to a client must be in the best interests of the client and appropriate to the client’s circumstances. |
2024
Date of decision |
Name of relevant provider (if applicable) |
Media release (if applicable) |
FSCP instrument |
Summary of decision |
---|---|---|---|---|
17/12/2024 |
Mr Y |
N/A |
Written direction issued under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider gave advice in June 2023 recommending a client rollover $2M from an untaxed State superannuation scheme. When giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to take into account or disclose that the $2M exceeded the untaxed cap rollover limit of $1,650,000, that the client had also previously used a portion of this limit and that tax would be payable at a rate of 47% on amounts exceeding the cap. As a result of accepting the advice, the client paid tax of $201,365 from exceeding the cap. The Sitting Panel believed that the relevant provider contravened sections 961B(1), 961G and 921E(3) specifically they did not demonstrate compliance with Code of Ethics’ value of diligence and Standard 5. |
09/12/2024 |
Mr C |
N/A |
Reprimand issued under s921T(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider gave advice in January 2023 recommending a client make a superannuation non-concessional contribution of $329,000 in the 2022/2023 financial year when the client’s non-concessional cap for that year was $220,000. When giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to obtain or take into account the client’s superannuation assets in the client’s PSS pension fund. As a result, the client needed to withdraw $120,735 from their superannuation and pay tax on the associated earning of $13,570. The Sitting Panel believed that the relevant provider contravened sections 961B(1), 961G and 921E(3) specifically they did not demonstrate compliance with Code of Ethics’ value of diligence and Standard 5. |
09/12/2024 |
Mr W |
N/A |
Reprimand issued under s921T(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider gave advice to a client in March 2022 that included a recommendation to make a tax-deductible contribution to superannuation to reduce the tax liability from expected capital gains from the planned sale of an investment property. The relevant provider was advised of the sale of the property in July 2022 and in August 2022 the relevant provider confirmed the contribution could be made. However, the contract of sale for the property was signed in the 2021/22 financial year and the client did not have taxable income in the 2022/23 financial year to get the benefit of the tax deduction. The relevant provider did not explain to the client that the capital gains tax liability arises when the contract of sale is signed or take steps to confirm when the contract was signed before implementing the advice. The Sitting Panel believed that the relevant provider contravened sections 961B(1), 961G and 921E(3) specifically they did not demonstrate compliance with Code of Ethics’ values of diligence and competence and Standard 5. |
18/11/2024 |
Ian James Reid |
Written order pursuant to s921K(1)(d) and s921L(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel has made a registration suspension order under s921L(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 suspending Mr Ian Reid’s registration as a relevant provider for three months from 21 November 2024 because the Sitting Panel reasonably believes that Mr Reid has contravened the following financial services laws: s946A(1), s961B(1), s961G and s921E(3). |
|
28/08/2024 |
Ms J |
N/A |
N/A |
The sitting panel decided not to take action against the relevant provider. |
26/08/2024 |
Mr Z |
N/A |
N/A |
The Sitting Panel has decided not to take any action against the relevant provider. The matter was referred to the Sitting Panel due to concerns that the relevant provider contravened sections 946B, 961B(1) and 921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to personal advice given to two retail clients in September 2022. The Sitting Panel considered submissions from the relevant provider and decided to not to take any action. |
05/08/2024 |
Mr L |
N/A |
Warning issued under s921T(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel has issued a warning under s921T(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 to the relevant provider because the relevant provider contravened s946A(1) of the Corporations Act by failing to give a Statement of Advice to a client. The circumstances of the contravention were that between February 2022 and November 2022, the relevant provider gave Records of Advice to clients in reliance on Statements of Advice that had been given to the clients by a different providing entity. |
30/07/2024 |
Mr G |
N/A |
Written direction under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel determined that it reasonably believed that in giving advice to two retail clients, the relevant provider failed to accurately identify the clients’ goals, failed to make reasonable inquiries to obtain complete and accurate health information for one client, failed to consider the insurance information in relation to one client, and failed to consider the risk profiles of the clients, and therefore the relevant provider contravened s961B of the Corporations Act. |
13/05/2024 |
Mr J |
N/A |
Reprimand issued under s921T(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel determined that it reasonably believed that the relevant provider contravened sections 1041H and 921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to personal advice given to a retail client between June 2022 and October 2022 inclusive. The relevant provider was responsible for the backdating of some documents on a client file, including a Statement of Advice. Consequently, the relevant provider failed to demonstrate the Code of Ethics’ values of diligence and trustworthiness and breached its Standards 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8. |
17/04/2024 |
Mr F |
N/A |
Written direction issued under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001) |
The Sitting Panel has issued a written direction under s921L(a)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 to the relevant provider in relation to three SOAs. In relation to the first SOA, the relevant provider contravened s961B(1) and s961G by recommending that the client make a voluntary contribution to their superannuation fund to obtain a personal tax deduction when the superannuation fund did not allow voluntary contributions. |
07/03/2024 | Ms G | N/A | Reprimand issued under s921T(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel determined that it reasonably believed that the relevant provider contravened s946A(1) and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 when they failed to give statements of advice to five retail clients between June 2022 and August 2022. In giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to demonstrate the Code of Ethics’ values of competence and diligence and breached Standard 1 of the Code of Ethics. |
26/02/2024 | Mr B | N/A | N/A |
The Sitting Panel has decided not to take any action against the relevant provider. |
23/01/2024 | Mr A | N/A | Instrument issued under 921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider gave advice to two clients in relation to insurance and superannuation. The clients were referred to the relevant provider for advice from a third party superannuation switching cold calling operator that made an unsolicited telemarketing call to them offering a superannuation review. The Sitting Panel determined the advice provided involved contraventions of sections 961B(1), 961G, 961J(1), 921E(3) and 1041E(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. The relevant provider did not adequately consider the clients’ objectives, needs and financial situation or base all judgements on their relevant circumstances. Nor was the advice given to the clients appropriate in the circumstances. For example, the client files did not contain material justifying a) recommendations to switch superannuation funds in circumstances where the client was comfortable with their position and/or would receive small annual savings in product fees while incurring significant additional costs; and b) the assertion that the client was not adequately self-insured. Further, the client files did not contain evidence that the clients’ circumstances were such that they either wanted or needed ongoing advice to warrant ongoing fees, rather than paying for future services if the need arose. The relevant provider received soft benefits under a commercial agreement in advising the clients to switch superannuation funds and invest their superannuation funds in the particular product recommended. In the circumstances, the sitting panel was satisfied that the relevant provider prioritised the relevant provider’s own interest over the clients’ interests. The sitting panel also found that the relevant provider gave the clients misleading information that was likely to induce them to apply for the recommended investment product. The relevant provider included in the Statements of Advice a graph and statement that suggested that the recommended product outperformed other funds for an entire 5 year period when the recommended product had only been in existence for 1 year. There was no evidence that the clients understood the meaning or significance of “back tested results” as used for the recommended product in the graph. Therefore, in giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to demonstrate the Code of Ethics’ Values of honesty and fairness, and breached Standards 3, 5 and 9 of the Code of Ethics. As a consequence of the relevant provider’s conduct, the Sitting Panel issued a written direction under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 that the relevant provider receive specified supervision, being that the relevant provider engage an independent person with expertise in financial services laws compliance to pre-vet and audit the next 10 SOAs that include a recommendation in relation to insurance; and the next 10 SOAs that include a recommendation in relation to superannuation, that the relevant provider intends to present to a retail client. (NB. an SOA may include a recommendation in relation to both insurance and superannuation.) The relevant provider is required to provide the independent person’s findings as a result of their audit to ASIC, and the relevant provider must bear the cost of the work undertaken by the independent person under the written direction. |
2023
Date of decision |
Name of financial adviser (if applicable) |
Media release (if applicable) |
FSCP instrument |
Summary of decision |
---|---|---|---|---|
01/12/2023 | Mr Stephen Rogers | 23-335MR | Written order pursuant to s921K(1)(a) and 921L(1)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel made an order under section 921L(1)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) prohibiting Mr Stephen Rogers’ registration as a relevant provider until after 6 December 2025. The Sitting Panel considered Mr Rogers’ advice and conduct to one client and found that it was not appropriate for Mr Rogers to scope out of his advice to the client the suitability of establishing an SMSF or the suitability of the SMSF investing into products that were related to Mr Rogers’ licensee. Mr Rogers’ adoption of the scaled advice approach in relation to the client was not appropriate in circumstances where:
The Sitting Panel found Mr Rogers contravened:
|
04/12/2023 | Mr Timothy Anderson | 23-330MR | Written order pursuant to s921K(1)(a) and 921L(1)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel has made a registration prohibition order under s921L(1)(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 cancelling Mr Timothy Anderson’s registration as a relevant provider from 7 December 2023 until after 17 May 2025 because he is currently an insolvent under administration and is expected to be discharged from that bankruptcy on 17 May 2025. The Sitting Panel decided to make the registration prohibition order because it is satisfied that there is a real risk of harm being caused to the public’s confidence in the financial services industry, and to ASIC’s reputation, if an undischarged bankrupt is permitted to continue to give personal advice to retail clients about relevant financial products. The Sitting Panel is also satisfied that Mr Anderson has demonstrated a lack of professional judgement and insight in relation to his bankruptcy which warrants the making of a registration prohibition order until after 17 May 2025. |
11/10/2023 |
Mr P |
N/A |
N/A |
The Sitting Panel has decided not to take any action against the relevant provider. The relevant provider had clients sign blank off-market transfer forms which the relevant provider then photocopied and completed to transfer multiple securities. The Sitting Panel considered this was a breach of the code of ethics as the relevant provider did not act with integrity. However the Sitting Panel noted the extraneous factors and the significant remedial steps taken by the Licensee, and decided to take no further action. |
21/09/2023 |
Mr T |
N/A |
Warning issued under s921T(1)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel has given a written warning to the relevant provider having found that the relevant provider contravened s946A, s947D(2)(a)(iii) and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001. The relevant provider failed to include advice given to the client about using the downsizer rule in a Statement of Advice in February 2022, and in doing so failed to demonstrate the Code of Ethics’ Value of diligence. The Sitting Panel also found that the relevant provider contravened s947D(2)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to switching advice given in the SOA in February 2022, and in an SOA given to another client in March 2022. |
12/09/2023 |
Mr V |
N/A |
N/A |
The Sitting Panel has decided not to take any action against the relevant provider. The relevant provider was authorised by a superannuation fund to give advice to fund members about the fund, and gave advice to two fund members in their 60s who wanted to improve their superannuation balances by increasing their voluntary contributions and updating their investment strategy from balanced to aggressive. The matter was referred to the Sitting Panel due to concerns that the relevant provider contravened s961B(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 by failing to identify that the clients required retirement planning advice, by failing to make reasonable enquiries about their cashflow, and by failing to determine whether an aggressive investment strategy was appropriate. As a result, it appeared that the advice was not appropriate in contravention of s961G of the Corporations Act 2001. While the Sitting Panel considers the relevant provider could have done more in some areas, it did not believe the failures warranted action such as a warning or reprimand. |
08/09/2023 |
Ms D |
N/A |
Instrument issued under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider contravened s961B(1), s961G and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to cashflow, superannuation and insurance advice given to a client in an SOA. The relevant provider also contravened s961B(1), s961G, s1041E(1) and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to cashflow, investment, superannuation and insurance advice given to another client in an SOA. In the first SOA, the relevant provider failed to identify that the client sought debt recycling and estate planning advice, and failed to make reasonable enquiries to obtain complete and accurate information about the client’s business and an existing investment. As a result, the advice was not appropriate, and the relevant provider breached Standard 2 of the Code of Ethics and did not demonstrate the Value of competence. In the second SOA, the relevant provider failed to correctly identify the client’s risk profile, and recommended that the client switch an investment in an existing product to a new product on the basis of a false or misleading statement about the existing product. As a result, the advice was not appropriate, and the relevant provider breached Standard 2 and Standard 9 of the Code of Ethics and did not demonstrate the Value of competence. As a consequence of the relevant provider’s conduct, the Sitting Panel issued a written direction under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 that the relevant provider receive specified supervision, being that the relevant person engage an independent person with expertise in financial services laws compliance to pre-vet the next 10 SOAs the relevant provider intends to present to a retail client. The relevant provider is required to provide the independent person’s findings as a result of their audits to ASIC, and the relevant provider must bear the cost of the work undertaken by the independent person under the written direction. |
07/09/2023 |
Mr E |
N/A |
Reprimand issued under s921T(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider contravened s911B(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 by giving a Statement of Advice to a client which included an insurance recommendation when the relevant provider was not authorised to give insurance advice. By making the insurance recommendation, the relevant provider also contravened 921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 because: the relevant provider failed to comply with Standard 4 of the Code of Ethics because the client did not consent to receiving insurance advice; the relevant provider failed to comply with Standard 9 of the Code of Ethics because they were not competent or authorised to give insurance advice; and the relevant provider failed to comply with Standard 12 of the Code of Ethics because they were not competent or authorised to give insurance advice, the client did not consent to receiving insurance advice and the relevant provider’s branch manager had queried why the insurance recommendation had been made before the relevant provider gave the Statement of Advice the client. |
31/08/2023 |
Mr H |
N/A |
Instrument issued under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel found the relevant provider contravened sections 946B(3A), 961B(1) and 921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 and regulation 7.7.09 of the Corporations Regulation 2001. The relevant provider failed to keep adequate records of advice in relation to further advice given to three clients in contravention of s946B(3A) and regulation 7.7.09. The Sitting Panel found that the further advice given to the three clients was personal advice and it was inappropriate that it was given in general advice letters. The relevant provider did not act in the best interests of the clients as required by s961B(1) as the relevant provider had not kept adequate records e.g. to reference the research that formed the basis of the recommendations or advice, such that the relevant provider could not prove that they had performed all the actions specified in s961B(2) e.g. conducted a reasonable assessment of the financial product recommended. Consequently, the Sitting Panel found that the relevant provider failed to demonstrate the Code of Ethics’ Values of competence and diligence, and breached its Standards 5 and 8, thereby contravening s921E(3). As a result of the relevant provider’s conduct, the Sitting Panel issued a written direction under s921L(1)(a)(iii) that the relevant provider receive specified supervision, being that the relevant provider engage an independent person with expertise in financial services laws compliance to pre-vet and audit the next 10 pieces of advice that the relevant provider intends to present to a retail client. The relevant provider is required to provide the independent person’s findings as a result of their audit to ASIC, and the relevant provider must bear the cost of the work undertaken by the independent person under the written direction. |
31/08/2023 |
Mr O |
N/A |
Instrument issued under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The Sitting Panel found the relevant provider contravened sections 946B(3A), 961B(1) and 921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 and regulation 7.7.09 of the Corporations Regulation 2001. The relevant provider failed to keep adequate records of advice in relation to further advice given to three clients in contravention of s946B(3A) and regulation 7.7.09. The Sitting Panel found that the further advice given to the three clients was personal advice and it was inappropriate that it was given in general advice letters. The relevant provider did not act in the best interests of the clients as required by s961B(1) as the relevant provider had not kept adequate records e.g. to reference the research that formed the basis of the recommendations or advice, such that the relevant provider could not prove that they had performed all the actions specified in s961B(2) e.g. conducted a reasonable assessment of the financial product recommended. Consequently, the Sitting Panel found that the relevant provider failed to demonstrate the Code of Ethics’ Values of competence and diligence, and breached its Standards 5 and 8, thereby contravening s921E(3). As a result of the relevant provider’s conduct, the Sitting Panel issued a written direction under s921L(1)(a)(iii) that the relevant provider receive specified supervision, being that the relevant provider engage an independent person with expertise in financial services laws compliance to pre-vet and audit the next 10 pieces of advice that the relevant provider intends to present to a retail client. The relevant provider is required to provide the independent person’s findings as a result of their audit to ASIC, and the relevant provider must bear the cost of the work undertaken by the independent person under the written direction. |
07/08/2023 |
Mr K |
N/A |
Reprimand issued under s921T(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider recommended in a statement of advice (SOA) that the clients switch their superannuation from one fund to another, and transfer their life and TPD insurance (through super) to another provider. Upon discovering that the full amount of cover could not be transferred without further underwriting, the relevant provider did not revisit the advice but instead recommended in a record of advice (ROA) that the clients apportion their cover between the new and existing provider up to the maximum amount allowed without underwriting. Although the clients held life and TPD insurance in their existing superannuation fund, the relevant provider failed to consider their existing insurance or conduct an insurance needs analysis. The advice was also inappropriately scoped being limited to superannuation products only when the clients were also seeking retirement planning advice. The Sitting Panel determined that in giving the advice, the relevant provider contravened s961B(1), s961G, s961J(1) and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001. In giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to demonstrate the Code of Ethics’ values of competence and diligence and breached Standards 2 and 5 of the Code of Ethics. |
26/07/2023 |
Mr X |
N/A |
Instrument issued under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider gave Statements of Advice (SOA) to three clients (on the same day) which the Sitting Panel determined involved contraventions of sections 961B(1), 961G, 947D(2) and 921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001. The relevant provider adopted the layered advice strategy for each of the three clients, in circumstances where it was not appropriate to do so. It was not clear as to how the limited insurance advice scope was effective in each client’s circumstances without a contemporaneous assessment of their superannuation. The relevant provider did not adequately consider the three clients’ objectives, needs and financial situation or base all judgements on their relevant circumstances. For example the client files showed the collection of minimal information about their debts and expenses and they lacked explanation as to the bases for the insurance covers recommended. The relevant provider relied on generic, unsubstantiated reasons to support the recommendations for the replacement insurance products. All three clients appeared to be under-insured as a result of the relevant provider’s recommendations. Further, when previously recommending the three clients rollover their superannuation funds, the SOAs did not include any product replacement information as it related to the clients’ residual superannuation balances e.g. no comparisons of fees or risks, or identification of any benefits lost by closing their existing superannuation accounts. In giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to demonstrate the Code of Ethics’ Values of trustworthiness and diligence, and breached Standards 5 and 6 of the Code of Ethics. As a consequence of the relevant provider’s conduct, the Sitting Panel issued a written direction under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 that the relevant provider receive specified supervision, being that the relevant provider engage an independent person with expertise in financial services laws compliance to pre-vet and audit the next 10 SOAs that include a recommendation in relation to insurance; and the next 10 SOAs that include a recommendation in relation to superannuation, that the relevant provider intends to present to a retail client. (NB. an SOA may include a recommendation in relation to both insurance and superannuation.) The relevant provider is required to provide the independent person’s findings as a result of their audit to ASIC, and the relevant provider must bear the cost of the work undertaken by the independent person under the written direction. |
20/06/2023 |
Mr M |
N/A |
Instrument issued under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider recommended in a Statement of Advice (SOA) that the client, who had been cold-called, switch their superannuation from one fund to another. The Sitting Panel determined that in giving the advice, the relevant provider contravened s961B(1), s961G, s1041E(1) and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001. Although the client held life, TPD and IP insurance in their existing superannuation fund, the relevant provider failed to consider their existing insurance or give insurance advice to the client. The SOA recommended a high growth investment portfolio in the recommended superannuation fund despite the client having a growth risk profile. The SOA also contained retirement projections which had no basis in fact, and which the Sitting Panel is satisfied were used to induce the client into accepting the relevant provider’s recommendation. The Sitting Panel’s findings include that the SOA was presented to the client on the day after the fact find was completed, and on the same day that the client completed a risk profile questionnaire, demonstrating that the relevant provider could not have properly enquired about or considered the client’s needs and objectives. In giving the advice, the relevant provider failed to demonstrate the Code of Ethics’ Values of trustworthiness, competence, honesty, fairness and diligence, and breached Standards 2, 5 and 9 of the Code of Ethics. As a consequence of the relevant provider’s conduct, the Sitting Panel issued a written direction under s921L(1)(a)(iii) of the Corporations Act 2001 that the relevant provider receive specified supervision, being that the relevant person engage an independent person with expertise in financial services laws compliance to pre-vet the next 10 SOAs the relevant provider intends to present to a retail client. The written direction also requires the relevant provider to engage the independent person to select and audit 10 SOAs that the relevant provider presented to retail clients between 1 February 2023 and 30 April 2023. The relevant provider is required to provide the independent person’s findings as a result of their audits to ASIC, and the relevant provider must bear the cost of the work undertaken by the independent person under the written direction. |
29/05/2023 |
Mr S |
N/A |
Instrument issued under s921L(1)(a)(iv) of the Corporations Act 2001 |
The relevant provider impersonated a client during two telephone conversations with a bank in an attempt to facilitate a transaction for the client’s benefit. The relevant provider did not obtain any benefit as a result of the telephone conversations. The Sitting Panel determined the relevant provider contravened s1041H and s921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001, and issued a direction under s921L(1)(a)(iv) of the Corporations Act 2001 that the relevant provider provide a copy of three successive compliance audits undertaken by their licensee in relation to personal advice they have given to retail clients, with a minimum of 12 months between each successive audit, commencing in 2023, within 30 days of 30 June of the relevant year. |
More information
- Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP)
- Information Sheet 273 FSCP decisions: Your rights (INFO 273)
- Regulatory Guide 263 Financial Services and Credit Panel (RG 263)