Advisers escaped as ASIC focused on Dixon business model
A number of Dixon Advisory financial advisers escaped proceedings being initiated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) because the regulator was worried about the company’s business model and who was responsible for it.
Asked why six advisers it had named were continuing to practice, ASIC said the focus of its investigation and the underpinning of the subsequent civil penalty proceeding against Dixon Advisory was the business model, “and the responsibility of Dixon Advisory for that model”.
Answering a question on notice from NSW Liberal Senator, Andrew Bragg, ASIC said: “In this matter, the relevant individual advisers were acting in accordance with the guidance and procedures set by their licensees”.
“Whilst ASIC’s action relied on evidence of certain clients and instances of advice given to those clients (because each individual breach needed to be established to the Court’s satisfaction), the core regulatory concern, and focus of the proceedings was the structure of Dixon’s operation, which ASIC alleged led to advice failures across the business. As such, ASIC has not focused its enforcement efforts on individual advisers,” the regulator said.
Bragg also asked ASIC whether it had conducted investigations into any of the previous directors of Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services and named 12 persons who had served on the board from as early as 2002.
ASIC said that its investigations “were scoped to include conduct by officers, representatives and related entities”.
“As part of those investigations we considered the conduct and role of some of the above individuals within the context of the subject matter under investigation,” it said.
“A second investigation related to decisions surrounding Dixon Advisory being placed into Voluntary Administration and commenced in March 2022. This investigation consi<lered potential contraventions of directors’ duties by officers of Dixon Advisory, Evans and Partners and related entities. As part of that investigation we considered the conduct and role of some of the above individuals Within the context of the subject matter under investigation. On 3 August 2023, we commenced proceedings against one of
Asked why six advisers it had named were continuing to practice, ASIC said the focus of its investigation and the underpinning of the subsequent civil penalty proceeding against Dixon Advisory was the business model, “and the responsibility of Dixon Advisory for that model”.
Did I read that right!
Yet Advisers still being blamed and force to pay via CSLR when it was ALL about the Dixon’s dodgy vertically sold MIS product failure.
Of course no CSLR for MIS.
Canberra, ASIC, MIS and Financial Institutions totally Corrupt.
As for ASIC, warned for 10 years about Dixon’s dodgy MIS and did NOTHING until it all collapsed.
So in short, ASIC has done nothing, despite being warned for years about Dixon’s activities. Those who caused significant consumer harm walk away with no consequence at all, while all good honest advisers will be asked to fund ASIC to continue their incompetence.
Even better ASIC let Dixon’s float on the ASX for the criminal directors to pocket tens of millions, all whilst Dixon’s and ASIC were well aware to the toxic MIS fiasco awaiting explosion.
Criminal negligence from both Dixon’s and ASIC.
And ASIC now want Real Advisers to pay for their regulatory stuff up via advertising Dixon’s clients go to CSLR.
Disgusting, Corrupt, Useless ASIC
ASIC has been too busy persecuting honest advisers and strangling them with red tape, to take meaningful action against the real causes of harm.
For example ASIC has been busily working away on a new complaints reporting system, which will require the vast majority of honest advisers who have had no complaints, to submit reports to ASIC that they have nothing to report! If they have had no complaints, and fail to report to ASIC that they have had no complaints, they will be treated like criminals. Meanwhile real criminals carry on with impunity.
Also another Adviser Registration on the FAR ?
Does anyone understand why Advisers already registered on the FAR have to do Another Registration?
Let’s not forget that reporting that you’ve had no complaints will also be viewed with suspicion, because the bar is now so low everyone is expected to have regular “complaints”.