ASIC still wants to spend more on lawyers
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has claimed it would be assisted in legally pursuing large entities if it was allowed to spend more on lawyers.
While defending its willingness to pursue large entities, ASIC repeated earlier evidence it gave to a Parliamentary Committee that it feels constrained by Commonwealth limits on what can Government departments and agencies can spend on lawyers.
Elsewhere in answers to written questions from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, ASIC referred to $166,020, 000 in court-ordered pecuniary penalties in 2022-23.
“In the proceedings in which ASIC and the defendant put an agreed position to the Court at trial, a total of $166,020,000 in pecuniary penalties was ordered by the Court,” it said.
Answering a written question on notice from West Australian Labor parliamentarian, Tania Lawrence, ASIC said it had “a strong enforcement record of pursuing litigation against large entities and their officers.
In doing so, it cited having earlier this year commenced court proceedings against insurer, QBE Insurance for misleading customers about the value of discounts offered on certain general insurance products, and for its pursuit of 11 current and former directors of Star Entertainment Group.
“There are numerous other examples of ASIC pursuing large entities and their officers. ASIC can provide further examples if this would assist the Committee,” the regulator said.
“ASIC would be assisted with the conduct of its litigation against large entities and their officers by having more flexibility in the rates it is permitted to pay Counsel who appear for ASIC in its enforcement litigation, under the Legal Services Directions 2017 (Cth),” it said.
ASIC said it did not have written guidelines for reaching agreed positions with defendants but suggested that such outcomes were generally on ASIC’s terms.
“ASIC brings court proceedings where it forms the view that the evidence establishes that the defendant has contravened the law and that it is in the public interest to commence the proceedings to protect the public, including through specific and general deterrence,” it said.
“If a defendant proposes an agreed position be put to the Court, ASIC will only agree to that position where it is of the view that the proposed outcomes achieve ASIC’s regulatory purpose in commencing the proceedings and the proposed outcome is consistent with the evidence. As a result, in many cases where an agreed outcome is put to the Court, that outcome either entirely, or very closely, reflects ASIC’s allegations in the claim.
“There are numerous other examples of ASIC pursuing large entities and their officers.
– Dixon’s
– Evans & Partners
Let’s take a real good look at ASICs pursuit of Dixon’s officers.
Probably best to get Nerida Cole to investigate, hey Govt.
Nerida Cole the previous head of Advice at Dodgy Dixon’s now employed by Treasury in Adviser Regulation.
The previous head of westpac legal who signed off fees for no service for dead people as outlined at the royal commission also employed by asic then its published they makes statements that advisers rip people off at the first Treasury meeting for qoar and the FAAA leave AIOFP to dry when they call it out. This bias and clear anti adviser agenda is robbing Australians of objective finance help, all to pander to industry funds and their anti adviser agenda. It’s sick. Uniquely Australian stupdity while Advisers in 3rd world courties with less mandatory education no code of ethics or reduced numbers or post RC suicides are doing fine. Do not continue or increase funding to this bloated bias and bullying regulator.
ASIC continue to lose cases how about fire all the dead weight then you can afford someone that can win a case… look what just happened with dixon they had a slam dunk case but they didn’t do anything because they hired the person that was running the joint before they went bust. talk about conflicts of interest this is worst then commissions being paid.
Disband asic. Easy to ask for more when you aren’t paying for any of it. Corrupt, hiring the head of Dixon to ASIC is the clearest form of conflicted corruption. Allow FP to Self Regulate and have pooled PI across professional bodies. Affordability solved and the professional advisers remaining who don’t rip people off and are not vertically integrated can help Australians more affordably. PIGS IN TROUGH ASIC DONT NEED MORE SWILL THEY NEED TO BE DUMPED
I think more direct questions to ASIC are in order here…
The devil is always in the detail. The prevailing takeaway here is it’s very easy to spend other people’s money when you don’t need to work within your means.
Can ASIC hire lawyers to review the below and fix it:
ASIC should review the case and properly investigate the financial planner they crucified (lost their houses, savings and nearly lost his family and suffered significant distress through this experience until now) for alleged churning of insurance products. Through some bogus complaint (severely manipulated & incomplete information) regarding this financial planner, they alleged the financial planner churned insurance products and put his clients into an inferior product and claimed commissions from it (His superiors received the commissions as per evidence, not him, he was an employee). Turns out, this financial planner had no choice to represent himself at the AAT (no funds to hire a lawyer or barrister, spent $400k), Evidence shows new life insurance products clearly had more features and benefits and monthly premiums was significantly lower and had a reference number before assessment for every single file. Materials was severely manipulated to make it look like this financial planner was a crook. This financial planner had no compliance breaches, 100 plus good character references from the community and industry & had all the awards, 3 independent experts was hired to investigate the matter and turns out there was no formal / verbal warning of any breaches and other financial planners were doing it and still practising. The transfer form provided was the incorrect form. The correct transfer form was generated after this financial planner left.
When the truth started to surface, executives and including ASIC delegate who ruined this financial planner’s life, retired/resigned and employed somewhere else. ASIC has ruined this person’s life including his family (I am sure ASIC staff have families themselves) by not investigating this matter thoroughly & properly, they simply relied on materials provided to them. Lastly, they alleged 49 client files was churned, however, when this financial planner, decided to represent himself and directly asked for the 49 client files so he can thoroughly investigate his matter, he has only received 20 client files, until now remaining 29 files have not been presented. Information on the judgement states, “retraining & monitoring this financial planner was a better option considering the truth was revealed”. ASIC need to take accountability for their significant errors and correct this.
With no legal background, this planner represented himself against ASIC for 2days to show them the truth, he was by himself and had the courage to do it.
This is merely a case of ASIC finding an Adviser and exterminating them like a cockroach. You see ASIC views Financial Planners as the cockroach that scuttle about in your kitchen at 3am in the morning.
ASIC are a combination of 1) being corrupt, which is evidenced by this case when compared to prosecutions again the CBA and the staggering number of complaints before AFCA from Industry Super Fund members, not to mention CBus et al… 2) They’re also inept and incompetant ( I don’t really need to explain this do I) but as demonstrated by the billions lost to scammers, and 3) their relationship with the Advice industry is so adversarial (as evidenced by the design of Fee Disclosure Statements, and having more staff in the ” exterminate the Adviser team” than Super funds.
This financial planner represented HIMSELF for 2 days against ASIC and their barristers/solicitors, but this financial planner knew the truth via the evidence provided to ASIC, all they had to do was read/investigate it properly. Yes there was a reasonable basis of advise – significant lower premiums & better features and benefits coz existing insurance covers increased min.15% and clients was complaining about this, his employer/executives took all the commissions, he was a paid employee. They made this bogus complaint after a year (2015) he started his own practice. Fyi, it seems this financial planner’s ex boss finally got what he deserved (banned) coz this financial planner fought for the truth.
Why did ASIC simply rely on the incomplete / manipulated evidence against this financial planner?
This is a miscarriage of justice.
In my younger days I saw ASIC as an approachable Police Officer and partner, working together we could reduce financial crimes and increase consumer faith in the financial services industry. I’d often make contact informing them of scams, write submission etc etc.
Oh how misguided I was.
Witnessing their incompetence, and corruption and the impact that has on ordinary Australians I am totally disenchanted with them. Unlike prior years when I’ve seen scammers and poor conduct,and Australians being ripped off… I merely put my head down and shuffle on back to my mountain of red tape…cause I know it’s simply a waste of time. ASIC has a very adversarial approach with Advisers. They have to hide like cockroaches in the dark corners of the kitchen not game to put their heads out for fear of being stomped on as a dirty little cockroach. That’s a real shame.
So let’s throw some more money at them because that’s the answer….I don’t think so.
ASIC are a monumental failure and always have been. Furthermore, their attitude towards hard-working Financial Planning professionals is abhorrent. But hey, let’s give them some more money so they can continue on with their ‘success’.
They should probably divert some of the resources they use to petunately purse financial adviser compliance and hire some competent lawyers. What about their current lawyers who seem to not be up to the task? Keep them on, in pure wasteful bureaucratic culture that is synonymous with government? Government employees are unsackable apparently.