Asic

ASIC has cancelled the Australian credit licence (ACL) of Dominique Grubisa&rsquo;s company Master Wealth Control Pty Ltd (Master Wealth Control), effective from May 2021.

ASIC cancelled the ACL on the basis that Master Wealth Control has not engaged in the credit activities authorised by its credit licence.

Since February 2020, the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 allows ASIC to cancel a credit licence if the licensee has not engaged in the credit activities authorised by the credit licence within a specified 6-month period.

[smartcode_project:default project_id=2881 project_image_fid=148737]

Master Wealth Control held an ACL from 29 March 2011 to 3 May 2021 (number 400712). During this time, ASIC found that Master Wealth Control did not engage in any authorised credit activities under its credit licence in the period commencing 18 February 2020.

At ASIC&rsquo;s request, Ms Grubisa has also removed statements on the website claiming she was an &lsquo;ASIC licensed debt specialist&rsquo; and held an &lsquo;ASIC Financial Services Licence&rsquo;.&nbsp;

Neither Ms Grubisa nor her companies currently hold any authorisations or licence to provide financial services, ASIC advised.

ASIC&rsquo;s investigation into Ms Grubisa remains ongoing, it added.

Master Wealth Control may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of ASIC&rsquo;s decision.

Master Wealth Control can apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of ASIC’s decision

jchancellor

ASIC cancels Dominique Grubisa’s Master Wealth Control credit licence

<html><body>
ASIC has banned the Sydney mortgage broker Astna Shirtika Sahay after she let her father use her company’s credit representative authority and ANZ accreditation.

Ms Sahay’s father, Shiv Prakash Sahay, used her accreditations after he was banned for life by ASIC in 2015.

The corporate regulator found the Mascot based Ms Sahay was involved in 31 contraventions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act through her father’s use of her accreditations.

Her company was Absolute Finance.

ASIC found Ms Sahay did not possess the necessary attributes of diligence, judgment, honesty and integrity and was not a fit and proper person to engage in credit activities.

Sahay’s banning is recorded on ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Persons Register.

Ms Sahay has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the ASIC’s decision.

Mr Sahay was sentenced last June 2020 in the Downing Centre Local Court on two charges of breaching section 82(2) of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth). 

After Mr Sahay pleaded guilty to the offences he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine months, which was wholly suspended immediately upon Mr Sahay entering into a nine-month good behaviour bond.

The court found that between October 2015 and October 2018, Mr Sahay continued to engage in credit activity in relation to 38 credit contracts for loans totalling over $17 million and earned $111,064 in commissions on these loans.

The matter was prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions after an investigation and referral of a prosecution brief from ASIC.

Sahay’s conduct was part of the consumer lending case study considered in the Financial Services Royal Commission.
</body></html>

ASIC found the Mascot-based Ms Sahay was involved in 31 contraventions of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act through her father’s use of her accreditations

Daughter joins father in ASIC mortgage broker ban

<html><body>
ASIC has commenced civil proceedings in the Federal Court over what the corporate regulator claims is an unregistered Perth based managed investment scheme providing unlicensed financial advice.

The scheme has raised over $11 million for property development purposes.

The proceedings are against Ms Monica Kaur, MKS Property Investments/Developments Pty Ltd (MKS Property), Paradise Property Group Pty Ltd (Paradise Property) as well as against Mr Sadu Singh, Mr Melvin Paul Singh and Ms Stephanie Lee.

“ASIC is concerned that Ms Kaur is providing unlicensed financial advice services and that she, together with the defendants, are involved in promoting and operating an unregistered managed investment scheme,” ASIC advised.

On 16 December 2020, ASIC obtained urgent interim orders:  

- restraining the defendants from removing their assets from Australia, disposing of their property, and freezing monies in their bank accounts including in Singapore; and

- preventing Ms Kaur, Mr Singh and Mr Melvin Singh from leaving Australia.

ASIC alleges the defendants raised at least $11.3 million from around 300 investors during the period March 2017 to September 2020 through MKS Property. 

It is alleged that investors were encouraged to establish a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) and invest part or all of their SMSFs or other funds into property investments and developments set up by MKS Property and/or Paradise Property. 

These funds would be pooled together to invest in property development.

“ASIC alleges the defendants used investor funds, at least in part, for their own personal use and to pay returns to investors,” it claims.

On 17 December 2020, ASIC, with the assistance of the AFP, executed search warrants.

The orders are to remain until February 15.

ASIC’s investigation is continuing.
</body></html>

ASIC alleges the defendants raised at least $11.3 million from around 300 investors during the period March 2017 to September 2020 through MKS Property.

ASIC launch Federal Court proceedings over alleged unlicensed $11.3 million property development scheme

<html><body>
ASIC has accepted an enforceable undertaking from Ascentiv Group Pty Ltd, based in Mascot, New South Wales, and its sole director, Mr Chris Pappas.
An ASIC surveillance of Ascentiv, the holder of an Australian financial services (AFS) licence, found concerns about Ascentiv's advice to clients to establish or use a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF).
In particular, ASIC had concerns about Ascentiv's failure to:
<ul>
<li>ensure its representatives provide SMSF advice that was appropriate and in the best interests of their clients</li>
<li>adequately manage conflicts of interest</li>
<li>adequately monitor and supervise its representatives, and</li>
<li>ensure its representatives were adequately trained and competent to provide SMSF advice.</li>
</ul>
According to ASIC, surveillance also found that Ascentiv failed to provide its clients with clear and concise statements of advice. 
"Instead the statements of advice were very lengthy and difficult to understand, making it difficult for Ascentiv's clients to make informed decisions about the advice provided to them," ASIC said.
"Under the EU, Ascentiv has agreed to cancel its AFS licence and write to some of its existing clients to inform them of the EU and the clients' rights to dispute resolution."
Mr Pappas has also undertaken to:
<ul>
<li>give a copy of the EU to any AFS licensee that authorises him to provide financial services in the future;</li>
<li>complete further SMSF specialist training before becoming a representative of an AFS licensee; and</li>
<li>refrain from becoming an AFS licensee or office holder of an AFS licensee for two years.</li>
</ul>
ASIC Deputy Chairman, Peter Kell said elf-managed super funds are not appropriate for everyone. It is important that the advice provided to clients of financial advisers is appropriate for those individuals' needs and circumstances.
'ASIC further expects that AFS licensees that provide SMSF advice to adequately monitor their representatives and have processes which lead to the provision of high quality SMSF advice," he said.
"ASIC will intervene where it finds the quality of advice provided by advisers and the supervision of those advisers by the licensee to be lacking."
ASIC acknowledges Ascentiv and Mr Pappas' cooperation throughout the process.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

ASIC accepts enforceable undertaking from Ascentiv Group relating to SMSF advice 

<html><body>
Investment in residential property through self-managed superannuation funds has risen 11% in the past year. 
The big increase in property investment by SMSFs is revealed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in its submission to the latest parliamentary inquiry on home ownership. 
"As at March 2015, the value of residential real property investments through SMSFs was $21.78 billion … up from $19.49 billion … in March 2014," the ASIC submission said. 
Despite the growth, residential property still makes up less than 4% of total Australian and overseas assets held by the 500,000 SMSFs. 
The Reserve Bank of Australia also observed that "although the share of the housing stock owned by these funds is small, it has grown quickly". 
Since the law changed in 2003 to allow SMSFs to borrow money, concern has increased about the influence of the small super funds on the housing market. 
SMSFs are the fastest growing sector of the superannuation industry and investment in property through SMSFs is consequently also growing, ASIC noted.
As at March 2015, the value of residential real property investments through SMSFs was $21.78 billion, or 3.7% of total Australian and overseas assets, up from $19.49 billion, or 3.6% of total Australian and overseas assets, in March 2014.
"There has been an increase in investment in residential real property through SMSFs of 11.78% from March 2014 to March 2015, and an increase of 58.69% since March 2011.
"ASIC’s primary role in relation to SMSFs is to regulate the gatekeepers—the financial planners, accountants, auditors and providers of products and services to SMSFs.
"We want to ensure that those who are advising retail clients about establishing and investing through SMSFs are providing good quality advice.
"We consider that gatekeepers have a critically important role in ensuring the overall health of the SMSF sector is sound.
"ASIC has publicly warned investors about misleading advertisements regarding the use of SMSFs.
"ASIC has also taken regulatory action in relation to the promotion of investment in residential property through SMSFs in a number of instances, including Money Choice, Charterhill and Park Trent," the submission noted.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

SMSFs spending on housing up 11%: ASIC

<html><body>
ASIC has provided two information packs designed to better the advice given by advisers on investing in self-managed superannuation funds.
The downloadable documents stress ASIC's view that an SMSF with a starting balance of $200,000 or below is unlikely to be client-centric and more likely be investigated by ASIC.
ASIC Deputy Chairman Peter Kell said it is important that consumers receive good quality advice that will assist them in making informed decisions about their retirement savings.
'ASIC wants to ensure that only those investors for whom an SMSF is suitable are advised to establish an SMSF and that our expectations around the standards of advice are clear.
'SMSFs are a key priority for ASIC and we will continue to target inappropriate advice about SMSFs in our surveillance work,' Mr Kell said.
ASICs information packs can be downloaded <a href="https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/media-centre/find-a-media-release/2015-releases/15-192mr-asic-releases-guidance-on-smsf-advice/" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

mick.cee-iDmgDDAmu8

ASIC offers to help SMSF investment advisers

<html><body>
ASIC has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia and obtained interim injunctions against Perth-based Superfunded Pty Ltd and its sole director, Mr Max David Goldenberg, of Currambine and its sole shareholder Mark Travis Goldenberg of Claremont.
The proceedings concern their promotion of a business that encourages people to set up self-managed super funds to invest in the Superfunded Loan Investment Trust, which lends money to home buyers for their house deposits.
Neither Superfunded nor the Goldenbergs holds an Australian Financial Services licence and ASIC alleges that Superfunded and the Goldenbergs are therefore unlawfully carrying on a financial services business.
On 9 November 2017, the Federal Court of Australia made the following interim orders:　
<ul>
<li>restraining Superfunded and the Goldenbergs from providing financial services;　</li>
<li>restraining Superfunded and the Goldenbergs from having access to client or investor assets;　</li>
<li>prohibiting advertising, promoting or marketing financial services or products in relation to the investors and potential investors of the Superfunded Loan Investment Trust;</li>
<li>for the preservation of assets; and</li>
<li>for financial disclosure.　</li>
</ul>
The interim orders will remain in force until further order. The matter has otherwise been adjourned to a date to be fixed with liberty to any party to apply to the Court on 24 hours' notice.
Mark Goldenberg is the Trustee of the Superfunded Loan Investment Trust.
Mark Goldenberg was permanently banned from providing financial services in May 2009.　
Mark Goldenberg was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in 2011 following an ASIC prosecution for misusing $1.5 million of investor funds for his own benefit.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

ASIC acts against the Goldenbergs SMSF scheme

<html><body>
ASIC has intervened in relation to 21 superannuation trustees, representing 15 per cent of the trustee population, to improve 'Transparency Information' (TI) on their super fund websites.
Under s29QB of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act), each superannuation fund must disclose TI on a website and keep it up to date at all times.
TI comprises remuneration, governance and other information related to the fund; for example trustee directors’ remuneration for the last two financial years, fund trust deeds and product disclosure statements, a summary of significant event notices sent to fund members in the last two years and a summary of how the trustee voted in the last financial year in relation to listed shares held by the fund.
ASIC's action follows an earlier review of transparency disclosure requirements introduced as part of the Stronger Super reforms (refer: 15-245MR), and a broader focus on ensuring superannuation trustees deliver transparent and accessible superannuation fund information.
Twenty-one super fund websites were identified as failing to meet TI requirements. Two of the super funds had assets exceeding $10 billion while the remaining 19 were smaller funds.
ASIC Deputy Chairman Peter Kell said the economic significance of superannuation meant that information about the superannuation industry should be transparent, both for fund members and gatekeepers such as analysts, advisers and journalists.
'ASIC's expectation is that super fund websites should be easily found by searching on the fund's name using an Internet search engine and that the website homepage should prominently point to the Transparency Information', Mr Kell said.
The transparency deficiencies identified in ASIC's review comprised:
<ul>
<li>no super fund website (10 funds);</li>
<li>no TI on the fund website (four funds);</li>
<li>no remuneration information (five funds); and</li>
<li>remuneration disclosed in bands, rather than for each individual executive officer (two funds).</li>
</ul>
ASIC wrote to the trustees of the 21 super funds asking them to address these transparency failures.
As a result, seven trustees disclosed the required information, five made it easier to find the information and trustees of two small funds, who did not have websites, sought relief from TI obligations.
Seven trustees transferred fund members to another fund before winding up the fund. Two trustees also improved their procedures for ensuring that TI is up to date.
Table 1 sets out the results according to TI failure type.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2017/07/05/Screen%20Shot%202017-07-05%20at%209.59.37%20am.jpg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/07/05/Screen%20Shot%202017-07-05%20at%209.59.37%20am.jpg" alt="">
ASIC has received applications for relief from TI obligations from two trustees that were in breach of the requirement to have a website, but no relief has been granted at this stage.
ASIC cannot give relief for breaches that have already taken place and will consider what further action may be necessary here.
'ASIC's expectations about effective disclosure that complies with the TI requirements are addressed in new MySuper FAQ D7, our earlier media release 15‑245MR ASIC reviews transparency information on super websites and other ASIC MySuper FAQs.
‘We encourage trustees to familiarise themselves with this guidance when designing or updating their super websites', Mr Kell said.
Regulations 2.37 and 2.38 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 specify what TI must include.
Failure to comply with TI obligations is a strict liability offence.
The 21 super funds where TI deficiencies were identified represented approximately 8 per cent of APRA-regulated funds (that are not small APRA funds).
ASIC has given industry relief and guidance in relation to the timing of the provision of information under s29QB (refer: Regulatory Guide 252 Keeping superannuation websites up to date).
</body></html>

ASIC acts to improve transparency of super websites

<html><body>
ASIC has imposed additional conditions on the Australian financial services (AFS) licence of SMSF Advisers Network Pty Ltd (SAN).
According to ASIC: "This follows a surveillance which ASIC commenced because of a significant increase in adviser numbers at SAN in a relatively short period of time.
"As part of the surveillance, ASIC reviewed a number of SAN’s client files.
"This review identified concerns including that some of SAN’s advisers had failed to demonstrate compliance with the best interest duty and related obligations.
"ASIC found that the statement of advice (SOA) documents relied heavily on templated wording and many of the client files lacked evidence to support the advisers’ recommendations that clients establish a SMSF."
As a result, ASIC was concerned that SAN had inadequate supervision processes in place. 
The additional licence conditions require:
SAN must engage an independent expert to review and test the compliance of advice provided by SAN’s advisers and to assess whether SAN has appropriate supervision mechanisms in place to ensure that its advisers are meeting the best interest duty and related obligations.
Where shortfalls in supervision arrangements are identified, the independent expert will make recommendations to address the deficiencies.
</body></html>

ASIC imposes additional licence conditions on SMSF Advisers Network

<html><body>
Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd, known as Park Trent, is under scrutiny from ASIC.
ASIC has commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where they seek interim and final orders that will stop the property promoters from carrying on an unlicensed financial services business.
Park Trent’s property promotion includes the use of SMSFs to purchase property. ASIC alleges that they are unlawfully carrying on a financial services business without a financial services licence.
At least 500 members of the public have been advised by Park Trent to start an SMSF and switch funds into it to then buy investment properties owned or promoted by Park Trent companies, according to ASIC, who are seeking orders to force Park Trent to notify current and former clients about the proceeding.
They would also be required to post details about the proceeding on their website.
Park Trent currently has almost 14,000 likes on Facebook and hold seminars across the country with offices in every state and territory apart from Tasmania and the Northern Territory.
The<a href="https://www.parktrent.com.au/finance/smsf/why-smsf/" target="_blank"> SMSF section of their website</a> encourages those who are interested in reading more to call their “EasyPlan Financial Services” team.
No doubt this will be of interest to other SMSF property promoters that do not hold financial services licences.
ASIC commissioner Greg Tanzer said that Australians hold more than $1.85 trillion in superannuation funds assets, including $557 billion in SMSFs.
“It is important when making decisions regarding superannuation to consider obtaining appropriate advice from an authorised financial adviser,” he said.
“Dealing with an authorised adviser affords specific protections under the law, such as acting in the best interests of clients, a duty to avoid conflicts of interest and providing access to dispute resolution schemes.”
The first hearing is listed for 26 November.
</body></html>

Asic

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Asic

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News