Sorry, where is the original article to which this comment refers

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.

probably best you edit your comment and replace the R word with something more appropriate

I’d suggest you contact Senator Andrew Bragg.

In an SMSF, it is a straight expense to reduce returns.

Yet another Canberra double standard joke. Sick of this.

You are finally having your day in the sun after years of writing (nearly every day) what you have written above.

Congrats.

No one seemed to tell them, or they didn’t know, that the key part of their IP plan, which relied on advisers replacing legacy IP contracts with the new paper mache IP contracts, could cause advisers to breach Standard 3 and 5 and a few others.The big replacement program never worked.

So lets see : advisers have to avoid conflict, but Super fund trustees and insurers can manage conflict.

Anyway the news about insurers playing commissions to superfunds by any other name is not new. Most risk specialists have known about commissions and KPIs on claims for a few years