Balanian is disqualified until at least 31 March 2031.

ASIC found Balanian engaged in "serious misconduct" and failed to meet his obligations as a director for Digital Commodity Assets, DCA Capital and Polychain between May 2017 and May 2024.

Digital Commodity and DCA Capital acted as trustee for a cryptocurrency fund called the Digital Commodity Assets Fund, which was a wholesale investment fund that exploited price differences between exchanges for a certain cryptocurrency.

As director, Balanian failed to lodge reports and provide assistance to liquidators of Digital Commodity and DCA Capital when requested to do so; failed to provide assistance and documents to the liquidators of Digital Commodity and DCA Capital; and showed an unwillingness to assist the liquidators in understanding the affairs of Digital Commodity and DCA Capital.

He also failed to ensure that DCA Capital held an Australian financial services licence (AFSL) and exercise due care and diligence for both entities. Similarly, he did not complete the report on company activities and property with liquidator Polychain and failed to ensure that it kept adequate books and records.

Polychain became investment manager of the fund on 12 November 2022.

ASIC believes Balanian's conduct was deliberate, allowing these companies to operate without complying with their obligations and was aware that a failure to comply would put investors at risk.

The Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025, which amends the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, passed the Senate on Wednesday.

It requires digital asset platforms (DAPs) and tokenised custody platforms (TCPs) to acquire AFSL and oblige with consumer protection requirements.

The government proposed the law in September last year, arguing that the legislation in this measure will close the regulatory gap, improve consumer protection, and ensure businesses meet standards like those in the broader financial system.

This move was welcomed by the industry.

Under the amendment, ASIC is also granted enforcement power over related DAPs and TCPs, and any breaches may attract civil penalties, it said.

Businesses are also given an 18-month period to comply with the new licensing and operational standards.

However, Digital Economy Council of Australia chair Paul Derham told Financial Standard said while the DAP authorisation is "pretty well" understood, the authorisation for TCP may require greater clarity with the mechanics around the tokenisation of real-world assets.

"A TCP authorisation introduces a legal framework for Australian licensed businesses to tokenise real-world asset. This new AFSL authorisation is a big deal - providing a framework for businesses to unlock liquidity across an unimaginably wide range of real-world assets," Derham said.

Regardless, Derham believes the new standard sets a "clear pathway" to a digital economy for both businesses and consumers.

"It lifts the sector into a regulated environment, which it has been calling for, for a long time. It is also likely to have a positive impact on the sector's ability to access normal banking rails," Derham said.

He said the council will continuously work with its members, Treasury and ASIC to develop rules and guidelines that are appropriate and fit-for-purpose.

Coinbase Australia managing director APAC John O'Loghlen echoed Derham's sentiment, stating that the passage is a recognition of digital assets' increasing roles in the domestic financial system.

"For years, Australia has needed clear rules to support innovation, protect consumers, and attract long-term investment in the sector," O'Loghlen said.

"This legislation and the foundational regulatory framework it creates is an important step, holding digital asset exchanges to the same operating standards as other financial services providers and giving consumers greater confidence to buy, hold, and sell crypto assets.

"While this strengthens Australia's standing in the global digital economy, we urge the government to prioritise the development of its broader reforms for digital assets and tokenisation, especially the development of the stablecoin framework."

CloudTech Group also supports the Bill, which it said focuses on regulating platforms and custodians rather than the underlying technology, supporting not only consumers but institutional investors and financial advisers that are keen to participate.

"This approach helps ensure that businesses are accountable for their actions, while keeping consumer protection front and centre," CloudTech Group chief financial officer Mandy Jiang said.

"Clear standards for safeguarding assets, reconciliation and operational controls will be critical not only for protecting consumers, but also for supporting participation from institutional investors and financial advisers.

"Effective custody is the backbone of a mature digital asset ecosystem. As the regulatory regime goes live, firms that invest early in compliant custody infrastructure and governance will be best placed to meet expectations and support the sector's long-term development."

The panel conducted more than 140 stakeholder interviews, reviewed submissions and an expert technical report of the CHESS system, undertook international benchmarking, held focus groups with ASX staff and reviewed over 10,000 documents.

The key observations of the Final Report were consistent with the Interim report, and include that resilience of critical market infrastructure has been compromised to deliver high shareholder returns; governance arrangements fail to provide the necessary focus on critical market infrastructure; the ASX lacks the aspiration to be a steward of critical market infrastructure; and capability and cultural barriers are hindering transformational change.

In addition to the Interim Report's findings, the panel also observed that ASX's risk management and compliance practices need to mature to become fit-for-purpose and embedded in business processes.

The report determined this contributed to ASX being overly reactive and tactical in its response to incidents and identified gaps.

It added an area that requires more reflection is the execution of ASX's own market supervision responsibilities to monitor, supervise and enforce compliance with Operating and Listing Rules by participants and listed entities.

The report comes after ASIC took the unprecedented step in June 2025 of commissioning the Inquiry into ASX after years of persistent issues and operational failings.

ASIC chair Joe Longo said the ASX Inquiry's Final Report reinforced the strategic package of reforms ASIC announced in December was the urgent reset required.

"This report confirms that ASIC's decision to commission this unprecedented Inquiry was the right call," Longo said.

"The further evidence and key observations in this Final Report support the scale of transformational change required at ASX to deliver on its stewardship of critical market infrastructure."

Longo thanked the Inquiry Panel for its work, which he said provided a circuit breaker for ASX and "a clear path forward to rebuilding trust and confidence in this operator of critical markets infrastructure."

In December 2025, ASX made commitments to ASIC on a package of reforms, and in February 2026 submitted its Commitments Plan outlining how it would deliver those reforms.

ASIC said it will continue to work closely with ASX on its delivery of the plan.

The reforms include the reset of ASX's Accelerate, of which ASX has committed to deliver the plan by June 30. This will define clear target states for ASX to fulfill its stewardship role; the development of a revised technology strategy that is aligned with the refreshed business strategy; and a capital charge of $150 million in net tangible assets to be implemented by 30 June 2027.

Additionally, ASX said it was committed to strengthening its governance and independence of its Clearing and Settlement Facility (CS) Boards.

As part of ASX's transformation, ASIC also noted its progress on leadership as ASX transitions to its new chief executive after Helen Lofthouse announced she would step down in May.

ASIC and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) have progressed their revised regulatory approach to ASX and are in the process of uplifting their joint supervisory model for the CS facilities. This includes establishing a joint working group, focused on a forward-looking, outcomes-based approach to ASX supervision.

"The market and the Australian public need resilient and reliable market infrastructure," Longo said.

"It is now firmly for ASX to ensure its transformation is successful and enduring. This will take time and will require sustained focus on leadership, accountability, investment and stewardship to deliver."

ASIC commissioner Simone Constant added: "What sets this Inquiry apart is that, alongside the release of the Final Report, there is already an update on ASX's early progress, and the concrete steps taken to meet its agreed commitments."

"ASIC determined early intervention was necessary during the Inquiry process, and we acted decisively.

"We will continue to drive the sustained change required to restore trust and confidence in ASX, and we will hold ASX to account to ensure these commitments are delivered in full."

ASIC said while the work is underway, it is critical ASX continues to prioritise the safe and efficient operation of its infrastructure, meeting the day-to-day needs of the market.

The step by the regulator follows a thematic review of Fiducian's investment governance, strategic planning and member outcomes practices.

It identified deficiencies in its onboarding practices for new investment options, monitoring and reporting of them, managing conflicts of interests, and board governance and oversight.

"APRA gave a clear and public warning to platform trustees last October that we would be escalating supervisory intensity as necessary to ensure that platform trustees were taking appropriate action to lift investment governance and member outcomes practices," APRA deputy chair Margaret Cole said.

APRA had written to platform trustees in the wake of the First Guardian and Shield Master Fund collapses, alerting them to the need to strengthen their investment governance processes.

APRA said Fiducian lacked sufficiently "rigorous, well-defined and consistently applied" investment selection criteria, as well as adequate due diligence for new investment options.

It raised concerns on effective monitoring and reporting frameworks in identifying and responding to performance and risk incidents. APRA also noted deficiencies in board governance and oversight.

APRA said Fiducian lacked management of potential conflicts of interest, particularly in relation to related-party service providers that advise investment options made available on the platform.

Under the additional conditions, applicable from April 2, Fiducian is required to appoint an independent expert to separately review high-risk products, investment governance and conflicts management frameworks.

It also has to appoint an independent expert to review effectiveness of its board of directors and committees.

Fiducian will need to implement an uplift plan to address the gaps identified by the expert and provide APRA with assurance that remediation actions are completed for it. It will also need to undertake a further review of its investment menu against the enhanced requirements to ensure ongoing suitability of each option.

"These actions, together with APRA's enforcement response in December 2025, are consistent with that approach and reflect APRA's risk-based approach to enforcement, which prioritises issues and entities that pose the most serious prudential risks," Cole said.

Fiducian is refrained from onboarding new high-risk investment options to its platform until the independent expert review is complete.

APRA said the expert would need to confirm the options have gone through an adequate onboarding process.  An accountable person must also attest all reasonable steps are taken to ensure the options are in members' best financial interests.

"APRA will continue to coordinate closely with ASIC to address investment governance weaknesses identified in platform trustees," Cole said.

Separately, Fiducian will pay ASIC a $7.3 million greenwashing penalty. ASIC found Fiducian made false and misleading statements about the socially responsible and ethical nature of its Diversified Social Aspirations Fund (DSAF).

Fiducian Superannuation Fund has approximately 9779 member accounts and over $3.1 billion in funds under management.

The TPB has released draft guidance and is seeking feedback until April 21.

Some of the core obligations it is proposing is for the tax practitioner using AI to remain accountable for the accuracy of information and advice they provide to their clients and must ensure that services are provided to a competent standard.

To comply with the competency requirements in the Code of Professional Conduct and Determination 62/2026, tax practitioners must exercise their own professional judgement when advising clients and should not rely on AI output as a substitute for their own analysis of a client's circumstances.

Another obligation is keeping client information confidential.

"In particular, tax practitioners should be mindful of their obligations under Code item 6 which provides that a tax practitioner must not disclose any information relating to a client's affairs to a third party without the client's permission, unless there is a legal duty to do so," the draft guidance read.

TPB chair Peter de Cure said the TPB is committed to supporting innovation in the tax profession.

"We recognise the significant opportunities AI can bring to improving productivity, efficiency and client service across the tax profession," he said.

"Our aim is to help tax practitioners embrace the benefits of AI with confidence; while continuing to meet the high professional and ethical standards set out in the Code."

He added that the TPB emphasises that the exposure draft is not intended to be a definitive or technical guide on AI systems.

"Instead, it focuses on helping tax practitioners understand how their existing statutory obligations apply when AI tools are incorporated into the provision of tax agent services," de Cure said.

Meanwhile, de Cure has been reappointed as chair on a part-time basis and member of the TPB by the Albanese government.

He has been a member of the TPB since 2017 and chair since 2023 and previously held several chair and director roles, including the Royal Flying Doctor Service (Central Operations), Accord Property Holdings and Wirra Wirra Vineyards.

David Bradbury was also appointed as part-time chair and member of the Board of Taxation.

Bradbury is currently a partner in the consulting division at KPMG Australia and honorary professor of taxation and chair of the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute Advisory Committee at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University.

ASIC has banned Nicholas Hogan from the financial services industry for four years, effective 18 December 2025.

During his employment as an authorised representative for Interprac Financial Planning and Rhys Reilly, also known as Reilly Financial, Hogan advised four clients to switch their superannuation funds using an advice process that outsourced the fact find and risk profile assessment to an unlicensed third party referral partner, ASIC said.

He was also found to have provided "predetermined" advice outcomes based on a template Statement of Advice (SOA), recommending clients switch super funds to Netwealth while retaining $10,000 for insurance purposes.

Additionally, Hogan was found to have engaged in misleading and unprofessional conduct by knowingly having SOAs prepared by others in his name. Simultaneously, he presented SOAs in the name of other advisers to clients of Venture Egg and Reilly Financial with limited interaction between himself and the clients, ASIC said.

Hogan commenced his professional year training in February 2022 under the supervision of Merhi of Venture Egg, who has since been charged over his involvement in the Shield and First Guardian disaster. Merhi was subsequently banned from working in financial services.

On 2 September 2022, Hogan became an authorised representative of Interprac Financial Planning and moved to become a corporate authorised representative of Reilly Financial in the following year.

Interprac is being sued by ASIC over its failures to ensure representatives acted in clients' best interests, while Venture Egg has been ordered by the Federal Court to be wound up on "just and equitable grounds" on March 25, appointing a liquidator.

Hogan applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal for a review of ASIC's decision, as well as a stay and confidentiality order on 22 December 2025. However, he shortly withdrew both applications and ASIC's decision stood.

ASIC commenced legal proceedings against the crypto platform in December 2024 alleging the entity breached multiple obligations, including inadequate oversight and subpar onboarding and classification procedures.

Binance admitted some 524 retail clients were exposed to "high-risk" crypto derivatives products without the required consumer protection due to their misclassification as wholesale investors in the period.

The misconduct resulted in more than $12 million in losses and fees, including $8.66 million in client trading losses and $3.89 million in paid fees.

The platform allowed clients seeking to be verified as sophisticated investors to make unlimited attempts at a multiple-choice quiz until they have passed were deemed one.

During the period, Binance also failed to provide a product disclosure statement (PDS) to retail clients, implement a target market determination, maintain a compliant internal dispute resolution system and ensure its services were provided appropriately.

Meanwhile, Binance's senior compliance staff provided inadequate oversight or review of client applications and supporting documentation, further weakening the onboarding and classification processes.

For example, Binance incorrectly assessed an individual as qualifying as a professional investor on the basis that the client certified that they were an 'exempt public authority', without adequate verification, ASIC said.

In August 2025, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) also directed Binance Australia to appoint an external auditor over its anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing controls.

Binance told Financial Standard it has ceased its derivatives business and voluntarily gave back its Australian financial services licence (AFSL) in 2023.

"Binance Australia is committed to offering users in Australia innovative, compliant, and trusted products, while helping advance the responsible growth of the country's blockchain and digital asset ecosystem," it said.

In addition to the pecuniary penalty, the court ordered Binance to contribute to ASIC's costs.

The penalty comes in addition to approximately $13.1 million in compensation paid to the affected clients, which ASIC oversaw in 2023.

Commenting, ASIC chair Joe Longo said Binance failed to impose basic compliance measures, leading to the outcome.

"Binance's shortcomings left more than 85% of their Australian customer base exposed to high-risk products they should have never been able to access, and without important consumer protections or rights, costing retail investors millions," Longo said.

"This wasn't just a technical breach - it directly resulted in over $12 million in client losses."

Longo added that multinational corporations need to be mindful of Australia's regulation when setting up shop here.

"All financial services companies must follow the law from day one and have proper client onboarding systems and processes in place. This includes financial services that relate to crypto and digital assets," he said.

Binance is part of the Binance Group, a global crypto exchange operator.

The financial adviser was reprimanded this month, after they were found to have provided poor advice in August 2023.

The adviser recommended two clients rollover their super balances to a new plan, failing to identify that death and TPD was funded through their super funds. As a result, the clients forfeited their cover.

The error was identified a year later, the FSCP explained, with the adviser notifying their licensee and arranging an insurance review.

The panel determined the adviser had breached financial services law and therefore also didn't comply with Standard 5 (client care) or Standard 9 (quality process) of the Code of Ethics.

The laws the adviser is said to have breached were s961B(1), s961G, s947D, and s921E(3).

This means the adviser did not act in the best interest of the client, failed to ensure that advice was appropriate to the client, failed to identify and disclose in the Statement of Advice that there would be consequences to making the change recommended, and failed to comply with the Code of Ethics.

The panel was convened on 10 December 2025, and the decision was handed down on March 18.

There have been two other FSCP determinations handed down so far this year.

One was an adviser who was reprimanded for failing to make reasonable inquiries to obtain complete information about a client's insurance arrangements through super before recommending they switch products and, with another client, failing to base all judgements on their relevant circumstances which resulted in several errors in the Statement of Advice.

The other, handed down in January, was a written direction issued to an adviser who recommended a client establish an SMSF to invest in certain unregistered managed investment schemes that were unsuitable to the client as they were for wholesale investors.

Kee saw it as an opportunity to tick off some personal administration she'd been meaning to get to, such as changing her pet and health insurance, and electricity and gas providers. She also intended to change her superannuation.

"At the time I was with Macquarie Vision and when I looked at my super statements from 2021 to 2022, I saw my balance had dropped by $28,000. I kept a close eye on my super and looked at the balance weekly," she says.

During that same week she was contacted by Aus Super Compare or AusCompare, a lead generator of the Shield Master Fund and First Guardian Master Fund that is now in liquidation.

"It had a legitimate name, and I went on to research the company. AusCompare then allocated me to a financial adviser at Reilly Financial. I talked to the adviser and did my due diligence, Google checking and so forth," Kee says.

This took place in November 2023 and in December her super savings transferred over to First Guardian. Kee opted for no insurance.

In January, when she contacted Reilly Financial to enquire about the cost of insurance no one was able to assist her as they seemed busy. The next month, Kee contacted them again to ask about First Guardian.

It seemed strange that she could not click into or see her investments, because she had specifically asked to view the breakdowns.

"I was told, 'most people aren't interested in seeing that'," she recalls.

About one or two months later, Kee wanted out.

"Three months was long enough for me to know that I did not want to stay with them as I was not getting the response I wanted," she says. "I was then told they were 'undergoing a restructure'. Then they eventually went into liquidation."

By February 2024, Kee began receiving emails from ASIC. By May 2024, responsible entity Falcon Capital suspended redemptions and applications in First Guardian, telling investors that it needed "to allow for a restructure of the master fund and its underlying funds."

Fast forward to February 2025, Falcon Capital said the suspension remained as lifting it was "contingent upon the receipt of significant contracted cash receivables."

The suspension never lifted. Falcon Capital and the managed investment scheme (MIS) are now in liquidation, leaving Kee with a $380,000 black hole in her retirement savings.

Her story is one of the 11,000 ASIC estimates to have been the victim of either the First Guardian or Shield collapse, amounting to about $1 billion in superannuation savings.

At the time of writing, Macquarie Investment Management and Netwealth have returned $300 million and $101 million of capital to investors respectively.

As for Part 23 of the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act (SIS Act) assistant treasurer Daniel Mulino is reviewing Diversa Trustees and Equity Trustees' applications to make their members whole, arguing that the two MISs were fraudulent and they therefore do not consider themselves responsible for the losses incurred by members.

InterPrac Financial Planning's parent company Sequoia Financial Group also wants to wash its hands clean of remediation obligations.

It is counting on the Operational Risk Financial Requirement (ORFR), which can be activated in the same way that victims of Trio Capital were remediated.

In a case of deja vu, the catastrophes of Shield and First Guardian have set off unsavoury repercussions for the financial advice profession, having barely shaken off the disrepute from the
Financial Services Royal Commission.

Good apples 

Freshwater Wealth founder and financial adviser Roger Perrett commiserates with impacted investors and says the flow-on effect it's had onadvisers has been profound.

"It is also so disappointing for the advice industry. It is unfortunate. It's a case of, 'here we go again'," he says.

"It's so sad for the industry, because it affects all of us. It affects all our brands. Everyone in the whole industry feels it and it's sad that certain people have acted this this way."

Amanda Doyle, the managing director of Infocus City West based in Perth, has personally engaged with several clients who have been affected.

"It's been devastating, listening to their stories and the pure panic and the disbelief that they are experiencing and then not necessarily being in a position to actually help," she says.

"I understand that's all getting unwound, and that people will have some refund, which is fantastic. That is quite amazing."

But more must be done going forward, she says, particularly on the trustees' end.

"I think the trustees are very adamant about what is and what isn't on their investment list, and then they've gone and approved [these two funds]," Doyle says.

"There also needs to be more follow up on the research of each of these underlying investments. It can't be a one and done."

Outgoing ASIC chair Joe Longo has admitted that failures hit the wealth management ecosystem far and wide and reached an "industrial scale" that implicated research houses, trustees, lead generators, auditors and licensees.

What has come to the fore is that all the players in the ecosystem exhibited negligence and laxity.

One Equity Trustees junior analyst, for example, red flagged the Shield product for having no track record but somehow outperformed its benchmark, was allegedly ignored, according to reports.

SQM is under fire for its questionable due diligence by giving a "favourable" rating to Shield. Macquarie was most recently admonished by the Federal Court for failing to put Shield on a watchlist.

"You should have processes in place that allow you to identify practices that may result in the erosion of super balances, including from inappropriate advice fee charges," Longo lectured the sector at a conference last July.

"You can't pass the buck by saying, 'Well, there's an adviser in the picture, so as trustees we have a diminished role'.

Longo, however, failed to point out the speck in ASIC's eye. Nevertheless, ASIC has copped scathing criticisms that it too was too slow and did not do enough to protect investors, with reports stating it knew about First Guardian and its director David Anderson as far back as 2019.

Perrett has experienced how "extremely difficult" it is to contact ASIC, perhaps due to being under-resourced.

"I understand ASIC may not be able to provide resources for every single complaint. But if ASIC is receiving numerous complaints about something, then ASIC should have the resources to at least check it out. But it can't even do that," he says.

Doyle questions the visibility into the books of fund managers. Should regulators and auditors and research houses, for example, have a closer look at the underlying investments and ask for proof?

"Can you see bank transactions purchasing shares or purchasing properties or even title deeds or share records? Then I think this problem wouldn't exist," she says.

Two steps back

The collapses have spelled trouble for the financial advice industry, setting it back and miring any progress it made toward a respectable and trusted profession since the Financial Services
Royal Commission.

Advisers criticised the deluge that came out of the commission as a "sledgehammer" that wiped out thousands from the sector. According to Rainmaker Information analysis of the ASIC Financial Adviser Register (FAR), the total number of advisers on the register is currently 15,151.

The rigid pathway framework also isn't doing the sector any favours. As an example, Doyle says that women bring enormous strengths to advice yet structural barriers like inflexible CPD, professional year (PY) expectations and work patterns still push many out.

"Practices that intentionally support women build a stronger talent pipeline. With women set to control or influence major intergenerational wealth, having advisers who reflect their clients is simply good business," she says.

Despite the setbacks, Financial Advice Association Australia (FAAA) general manager of advice and policy Phil Anderson05 is optimistic that meaningful reforms addressing major issues such as the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR) and Part 23 of the SIS Act, will come through this year.

Anderson is also hopeful that reforms will come though and reduce the risk of a repeat of Shield and First Guardian in 2026 and beyond.

In late 2025, Mulino suggested the 2025-26 special levy of $47.3 million may be divvied up across superannuation funds and SMSFs. He will also rope in the professional indemnity insurance (PII) sector.

Mulino also promised to publish an options paper early this year on the post implementation reform of the CSLR to address potential structural and technical changes to the scheme itself to ensure it remains sustainable.

"The minister will need to make decisions about the Part 23 SIS Act applications and then will likely choose to implement some reforms. At this stage, the extent of those reforms is unknown," Anderson says.

"It could be broad. It could be narrow. But reforms are needed to address the gaps that Shield and First Guardian have identified and to reduce the prospect of those being repeated."

Anderson is emphatic on getting clarity on the CSLR as this has significant repercussions for those currently working in this industry and anyone thinking of joining.

"I think we'll get answers to the CSLR problems and have changes that will make the scheme more sustainable, and I think we'll get greater certainty around the treatment of the special levy. That's really important, because it's creating a high level of anxiety, particularly for those approaching the end of their career:

Should I stay or should I go to avoid the potential exposure?" he says.

"We don't want it being an obstacle for new entrants coming into the market."

While there are also obvious disappointments about the delay in the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) Tranche 2 reforms being resolved, Anderson believes the government and minister, in particular, remain committed to such reforms.

"There's broad support from across the financial services sector that some of those things will be implemented. Whilst we need to wait for further details on the specifics of what the changes will be, we know broadly what is going to be delivered, and we hope that results in meaningful outcomes," he says.

Perrett sees DBFO as a way to try and get advice to more people, namely via superannuation funds.

While this is positive, he points out that too much of the industry is focused on the supply.

"Shouldn't we be working on demand? We should be going out there and educating and highlighting to people the opportunities they have or the risk they haven't thought of - getting people excited and getting people engaged," he says.

"I can't provide advice to everyone in Australia, but I think I can certainly contribute by educating thousands of people through social media and articles and things like that.

There's so much that can be done to make people become engaged first before they go out and seek advice."

It has been nearly one year since Labor's re-election in May 2025. Mulino is sitting on critical pieces of legislation the industry has been waiting on with bated breath. Yet, he has not so much mentioned a date when any types of draft laws will drop.

He admits that DBFO Tranche 2, which includes the possibility of a new class of advisers, is "complex" but is still a top priority.

The only reform making a hint of advancement is Treasury recently opening another review into the $2 trillion MIS sector off the back of the Shield and First Guardian disaster.

This time, the focus is on governance and oversight of registered MISs used by retail investors, particularly how ASIC's role can be improved.

Given that imposing additional obligations on responsible entities of MISs will unlikely prevent failures akin to Shield and First Guardian, Treasury believes proposing to reform "ASIC's ability to detect and respond to poor governance and other scheme risks" will make a difference.

"Whilst the minister, seemingly is going to prioritise resolving the CSLR, he has been quite specific to make it clear that DBFO remains a key priority," Anderson says.

"If you look at the mechanics of this, each of these initiatives is dependent upon work that's done within Treasury. It's a separate team in Treasury that's working on CSLR versus DBFO.

So, it's not as though the minister can't be pushing ahead with more than one thing at a time."

Practically speaking, Anderson thinksit may be well into 2026 before there are any signs of a DBFO Tranche 2B draft legislation.

Peer support

Kee has been steadfastly and patiently fighting to reclaim her superannuation money, regularly communicating with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

On top of this and her job, she finds time to educate and support other victims.

Kee is part of the First Guardian and Falcon Superannuation Discussion group on Facebook that currently has about 2000 members, most of whom are in the process of recovering or have recovered their money. For many, they find the support, resources and encouragement they need that no one else can offer.

She also spearheads the SOS Save Our Super website, an advocacy group that is fighting for justice for victims.

The site has comprehensive resources and information and contacts for those trying to navigate the labyrinthine redress process.

"Unfortunately, many people still believe the victims of the First Guardian and Shield Master Fund collapse were 'greedy investors' chasing high-risk, high-return schemes," she wrote in one educational post.

"That couldn't be further from the truth."

Danielle helps moderate the SOS webpage, while Peter, who lost $1.4 million in his self managed super fund, has also been very helpful to Kee and others affected.

Kee helped administer the Facebook page and then turned it into SOS Save our Super, believing that the victims needed an identity and advocacy.

"We have a variety of different demographics and people that are just so consumed by fear that they can't think straight. I thought, if I don't stand up and help them, who will?"

Like many others, Kee lost a lot of money in the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). When she returned to Australia after that at age 40, she had to start from scratch.

"I built a business and more than compensated for anything that I had lost. So, I understand their loss and how they are feeling. The stress of this all has also affected my own health," she says.

Ideally, Kee would like to see AFCA complaints related to InterPrac that have smaller amounts of capital go straight to CSLR. That is, complainants with $150,000 and under.

"This is so that people with a higher loss have a better opportunity of being made whole.

But this would need an amendment to legistlation to make the system fairer for all, ," Kee explains.

At present, InterPrac is the only solvent licensee standing and has about $20 million in PII.

"That money should be used to compensate people who had more than $150,000 invested," Kee says.

"My argument is that if the $20 million gets used by other people with less than $150,000 who will be made whole through the CSLR, when I am worried that others like myself will only get $150,000 when I am owed $380,0000."

Under the deal announced in July 2025, APRA's approval was required for Daintree Bidco to hold a controlling stake in Insignia Trustees.

The acquisition still needs to be approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board, Insignia Financial shareholders, and the court. It was already approved by ASIC, the ASX and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Insignia said its board continues to unanimously recommend shareholders vote in favour of the takeover at the scheme meeting on April 13.

Under the deal, CC Capital Partners will pay $3.3 billion for Insignia Financial, giving each shareholder $4.80 per share.

When the deed was signed in July 2025, Insignia Financial said it expects the takeover to occur in the first half of this year.

If the scheme has not come into effect by July 22 - exactly one year after the deal was reached - then Insignia would be permitted to pay a special cash dividend based on a 50% payout of underlying NPAT for each month that has elapsed.

Handing down findings today, Justice Wheelahan determined Macquarie should have placed the fun on a watch list for further monitoring but failed to do so. His finding was based on a Statement of Agreed Facts and Admissions filed by ASIC and Macquarie.

It follows Macquarie entering a court enforceable undertaking with ASIC in September last year and agreeing to reimburse more than 3000 super members who had been invested in Shield. This amounted to more than $320 million.

ASIC did not seek a penalty against Macquarie due to the exceptional circumstances of the case, including that all members were compensated.

However, it said the declaration by the court was an important milestone, with Justice Wheelahan adding that it informs the public of the harm arising from Macquarie's failure and deters other corporations from doing the same.

"Superannuation trustees play a crucial role safeguarding the retirement savings of their members. Australians expect super trustees to take the steps necessary to monitor funds available on their platforms. In this case, those steps could and should have triggered closer scrutiny of these investments," ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court said.

"Following ASIC's investigation, Macquarie paid members quickly, providing them certainty by returning them to the position they were in before their retirement savings were eroded. Today's declarations reinforce that trustees must put members first and take active steps to identify and respond to risks."

There are three other lawsuits brought by ASIC in relation to Shield and First Guardian in train, being those against Diversa Trustees, Equity Trustees Superannuation, and Interprac Financial Planning.

"We rightly, I believe, have multiple regulators in financial services. I think there are different critical roles. There's an importance in having a competition regulator, in having a prudential regulator, in having a conduct regulator, in having a regulator such as AUSTRAC dedicated to our payments system and a lot of the risks there, in having an independent umpire in AFCA, and others," Mulino said.

However, he said they are largely collecting data from the industry on different timelines or "slightly different asks".

"And so one of the things we're looking at, which I think is a good first step, is to ask, are there ways we can align the asks, and even align the definitions of what's being asked for. I feel that this is actually going to lead to better quality data, but also a red tape reduction in cost," he said.

Mulino said the aim is to improve the quality of intelligence being collected by regulators while also lowering the burden on the financial services sector.

During his speech, Mulino also touched on the public policy questions that have been raised by the Shield and First Guardian collapses.

"One is around governance and accountability for managed investment schemes, and this is an issue which has been on the public agenda for a long time. It's a complex issue," Mulino said.

"We know that managed funds, managed investment schemes (MIS) in particular, play a very important role in collective investments. They play a critical role across our economy, but there is also a risk here in that for retail investors to go into MISs often creates risks that are disproportionate to the potential gains. We need to figure out ways in which retail investors can go into MISs, but where there are sensible guardrails."

Mulino also flagged lead generation as an ongoing issue which can lead to great consumer harm.

"We're going to also consult on additional proposals to curb inappropriate lead generation," Mulino said.

He added the role platforms play in the financial services industry are "critical", but a balance needs to be found between enabling consumer choice while making sure platforms undertake the right due diligence and stand behind the products they have on their systems.

Touching on the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR), Mulino acknowledged the scheme has become a "pivotal" part of the broader financial sector reform question.

"One of the challenges with the CSLR at the moment is that it's struggling under the weight of collapses that have occurred even before we get to First Guardian and Shield, and so the CSLR is something which has bipartisan support... but it's another example of where there are trade-offs and where regulatory design will need to be revisited," Mulino said.

In addition, ASIC is looking at increasing the NTA requirements that apply to other fund operators, such as operators of investor directed portfolio services (IDPSs) and corporate directors of retail corporate collective investment schemes (CCIVs); and the NTA requirements for other categories of licensees as this will inform future ASIC work.

ASIC said it will announce its final position by 31 July 2026.

The last time NTA financial thresholds were amended was in July 2013.

ASIC said now is an appropriate time to review in the wake of the Shield and First Guardian collapses.

"In light of recent scheme collapses, we have focused our review on the NTA requirement for responsible entities (and similar requirements that apply to other fund managers) to ensure that the policy intention of the requirement continues to be upheld," the consultation paper said.

"However, we are also taking this opportunity to seek feedback on the appropriateness of the NTA settings for other AFS licensees to inform any future ASIC work."

ASIC said it is considering three possible options for increasing the NTA requirement for new and existing responsible entities, adding it may decide to adopt one or a combination of the options.

"Our proposed options range from increasing the NTA requirement in line with CPI to changes that involve adjusting the minimum NTA requirement or the $5 million cap under the concessional NTA requirement," the consultation paper said.

"We are also seeking feedback on whether we should change the liquidity component and the appropriate transition period for any increase to the NTA requirement."

Under the first option, ASIC would increase the financial thresholds in the NTA requirement for responsible entities to reflect cumulative CPI growth since 2013.

This would raise the $150,000 NTA minimum to $200,000, and the $500,000 NTA minimum to $700,000. In addition, the $5 million cap that applies to the average value of fund assets limb of the concessional NTA requirement would rise to $6.9 million, and the $10 million NTA minimum would rise to $13.8 million.

"If adopted alone, this approach would restore the real value of the minimum financial thresholds while preserving the remaining elements of the NTA requirement for responsible entities," ASIC said.

Under the second option, ASIC would increase the $150,000 minimum for responsible entities under the concessional NTA requirement to a higher fixed dollar amount of up to $1 million, or by applying this limb of the NTA formula on a per scheme basis - so a responsible entity must hold minimum NTA of the greater of $150,000 per scheme operated, 0.5% of the average value of fund assets (up to $5 million), or 10% of average revenue.

Under the third option, ASIC would increase the current $5 million cap on the average value of fund assets limb of the concessional NTA requirement to a higher dollar amount. Currently, the calculation is 0.5% of the average value of fund assets, capped at $5 million.

ASIC said it is also open to feedback on alternative approaches as the consultation process progresses.

A national survey conducted by YouGov found around one in four Gen Z Australians owns crypto; 66% said they take a speculative approach to at least some of their crypto investments.

Twenty-four percent of Gen Z crypto investors reported trying to pick a winner by buying the latest new 'coins' and 15% said they invest just for a 'bit of a punt'. They also reported being contacted about crypto investing, with men being contacted more often than women.

"Short-term or speculative trading based on what's popular online carries real risks, particularly in volatile markets like crypto," ASIC commissioner Alan Kirkland said.

Social media, one of the main sources of information for the 18 to 28 age demographic, is also a major distributor for crypto marketing. Almost three quarters of Gen Z have seen crypto ads on social media.

Sixty-three percent of Gen Z respondents said they use social media for financial information and guidance, while 30% use YouTube and 18% use AI platforms.

More than half of Gen Z said they somewhat or completely trust financial information on social media and from 'finfluencers', while 64% trusted AI platforms.

The regulator urged Gen Z Australians to complement the information they seek from influencers and content with reputable and evidence-based sources.

ASIC warned relying on a narrow range of sources, particularly unverified or promotional content, can increase financial risk, especially in an environment where markets and online trends move quickly and information is rarely tailored to individual circumstances.

At the same time, ASIC has refreshed the Moneysmart website, its consumer education platform, to make it more engaging and relevant for Australians of all generations.

"This refresh helps ensure Moneysmart provides a trusted alternative - free, independent and designed to help young Australians make decisions that work for them, not someone selling a product," ASIC said.

It comes as Ecstra Foundation notes a decline in financial literacy has meant young people enter adulthood without the skills they need to manage money, avoid scams and navigate an increasingly complex financial system.

Its program, Talk Money, recently introduced a workshop called "Becoming Scam Savvy", designed to help high school students recognise scams and stay safe online.

Ecstra Foundation chief executive Caroline Stewart said: "Financial education goes far beyond understanding money. It's about building the confidence, habits and practical life skills young people need to make good financial decisions throughout their lives."

Speaking at an industry event, Constant said five out of the 10 super funds the regulator is reviewing over how they use complaints to identify and address service issues said they couldn't identify a single systemic issue.

"Let's just sit with that for a minute. These trustees received thousands of complaints but told us they haven't identified one single systemic issue through regular review of complaint data? Really? And at least one trustee failed to analyse their complaints data at all," Constant said.

"Okay so why does this matter? Well, aside from it being an enforceable requirement to regularly analyse complaint data, complaints are, of course, a free source of intelligence.

"You don't need an expensive consultant to tell you you've got a problem. Your customers are telling you, loud and clear through complaints. And listening and responding to them is customer service 101."

Constant said it has become clear that the super sector needs to invest more in governance, capability, skills, systems and operations.

"You only need to look to the ASX for a cautionary tale on what happens when your investment and aspiration doesn't match your role in the system. The ASX is one of the most critical limbs of Australia's financial services, but it's failed to deliver on its promise to its customers because it has looked backward, not forward, whilst seeing its issues separately rather than listening to customers and bringing them together, for best practice.

"We are all one system. Every part of the system has its gaps - platforms, industry, retail, specialists, everyone. And it will require action from everyone - from all of us - to address."

Constant said ASIC's priorities around the super sector remain the same and urged trustees to step up to enable confident and informed participation, and transparency and efficiency for members and markets.

"Let's not all re-trade on the momentum from last year. In 2026, it's time to step it up and see it through," she said.

Speaking at the Melbourne money & finance conference, ASIC senior executive leader of fintech Rhys Bollen said digital assets should be regulated primarily on economic substance rather than technological form.

He added financial history shows regulators have repeatedly adapted to technology without abandoning foundational principles such as consumer protection, market integrity and systemic stability.

"The tendency to treat digital assets as fundamentally different risks repeating a familiar regulatory policy error: confusing technological novelty with economic novelty," Bollen said.

Bollen noted similar claims were made during the rise of e-commerce, dematerialisation of securities, the rise of electronic payments, and the emergence of complex securities and derivatives.

"In each case, regulators and policymakers ultimately responded not by discarding existing legal frameworks, but by extending and adapting them to new products and services, and new forms of intermediation," Bollen added.

Digital assets, ASIC said, do not disrupt fundamental economic functions such as capital allocation, payments and risk management. Instead, they provide new technical means through which capital can be raised, value transferred and risk allocated.

"Recognising this continuity is essential for policy and regulatory analysis. Unless digital assets are understood primarily as technological innovations rather than economic ones, regulatory responses risk being either excessively permissive or unduly restrictive," Bollen said.

"A functional understanding allows policymakers to calibrate obligations according to risk and impact, rather than novelty alone."

He added claims that legally the technology is incompatible with existing regulatory frameworks rests on an overly narrow understanding of financial law.

To regulate digital assets, Bollen noted, services can be mapped onto the current layered framework. While some regulations will fall under general consumer law, other can trigger general financial services regulation, while eventually the asset class may warrant prudential oversight.

"This approach avoids the binary choice between over-regulation and under-regulation that often characterises debates about crypto-assets," Bollen added.

The Federal Court found two former senior executives of Star breached their duties in relation to the handling of risks associated with money laundering and criminal activity.

The court found Star's former chief executive Matthias Bekier and former chief legal and risk officer Paula Martin breached their duties owed to Star under section 180 of the Corporations Act 2001.

However, the court dismissed ASIC's case against seven former non-executive directors after finding they did not breach their duties.

In a speech to the Australian Institute of Company Directors, Longo said while it is not the duty of a board to run companies day-to-day, there are questions about where the line should be drawn between the board and executive management, and despite the court's ruling Longo said the regulator will continue to pursue these cases.

"This is probably the most significant corporate governance case we have taken in my time at ASIC," he said.

"This was a case that we had to take on. Not only because matters such as this define and enforce the standards of care, diligence, and accountability expected of senior corporate leaders. But because of widespread community concern about what happened at Star Entertainment."

Longo said while it was determined the non-executive directors had not breached their duties, he did make a range of observations that make a serious contribution to what's expected of directors.

"This judgment, in my view, is not a backwards step for directors' duties - quite the opposite in fact. I think it will be studied by directors, executive management, and their advisers for years to come," Longo said.

"There is much in Justice Lee's judgment that is noteworthy. For me, there are three key observations that every director must take heed of."

Long said the first is that: "Directors are remunerated, sometimes handsomely, to do their job, which requires real engagement with information provided to them."

The second is that: "Directors cannot substitute reliance upon the advice of management for their own attention and examination of an important matter that falls specifically [within] the board's responsibilities."

And the third is that: "Directors cannot rely upon an inability to cope with the volume of information they receive" and must "take reasonable steps to place themselves in a position to guide and monitor the management of the company."

Longo said these statements from Justice Lee demonstrate that directors are not "passive recipients of information".

"They must discharge their duties with a high degree of curiosity and care. It's not enough to merely skim the board packs - directors should interrogate - if not outright challenge - information put to them. And that being overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of information provided to them is not an incontrovertible excuse," Longo said.

"I should say, nothing in this judgment has changed our appetite to hold corporate leaders to account for their governance failures. We will also continue to look for cases where we can define the line of responsibility for directors. Provided we have a reasonable basis for taking action, we won't shy away from cases where the outcome is uncertain."

Corrs Chambers Westgarth partner Andrew Lumsden said the extensive 500-page judgement sends a clear message that corporate governance law is increasingly concerned not simply with the decisions boards make, but with the systems through which information and risk reach them.

"Seen in this light, the decision is about information architecture. It reinforces a practical lesson for boards: modern governance enforcement increasingly turns on whether directors can demonstrate that they were engaged with the systems through which risk was identified, escalated and considered," Lumsden said.

"Modern enforcement action requires directors to demonstrate that they were engaged: asking questions, probing management and ensuring that the organisation's reporting systems surfaced the right risks at the right time."

Lumsden said the judgment protects conscious commercial decisions, but it offers no shelter where directors fail to engage with systems of oversight.

"As his Honour observed, a director who neglects proper safeguards without considering what safeguards there should be 'has not made a business judgment'," Lumsden said.

"In modern governance litigation, the question is increasingly not 'what decision did the board make?' but 'what information systems allowed the board to understand the risk?'"

ASIC said its set of proposals will enable more accurate due diligence for prospective acquisitions, and improved market conditions for investment decisions.

"They will also increase visibility when someone may be seeking greater influence over a listed company by building positions including through derivative exposures over securities in the company," the regulator said.

Amending the beneficial disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act will apply to companies, registered schemes, notified foreign passport funds and other bodies, whether incorporated or formed in Australia or not, that are listed on Australia's financial markets.

"The purpose of the beneficial disclosure obligations is to improve corporate transparency by showing who ultimately owns, controls and receives profits from listed entities," ASIC said.

Amending the act also means requiring foreign-registered entities listed on Australia's financial markets and their shareholders to disclose interests in securities to the same standard as Australian-registered listed entities and their shareholders.

ASIC proposes adopting a principle-based approach to determine the calculative methods for deemed economic interests and wants to introduce a "generally accepted standard pricing model" to price derivatives.

For substantial shareholders, ASIC wants them to complete a single form to meet their substantial holding disclosure obligations, in place of the current requirement to submit one of three separate forms.

ASIC also wants to discuss any compliance cost implications and the likely effect the reforms will have on competition.

ASIC details its intentions in Consultation Paper 387 Enhanced beneficial ownership disclosure - Proposed legislative instrument, form and guidance and is taking submissions until April 21.

The regulator will release the instrument, notice and regulatory guides in July.

Treasury undertook several reviews of its own into beneficial ownership disclosure requirements.

The 2024 review related to implementing a public beneficial ownership register, aimed at increasing transparency around who actually owns, controls or profits from companies.

The first stage focused on listed companies, and following a previous consultation in 2022, the government has released proposed reforms that would increase the disclosure of ownership information for listed companies and expand ASIC's enforcement powers.

The regulator found Terheci gave inappropriate advice to clients which was not in their best interests when she recommended they invest most of their superannuation into the High Growth class or the Growth class of the Shield Master Fund which were high risk investments.

ASIC also found Terheci's Statements of Advice contained false and misleading statements as they implied that they would enjoy better returns by investing their superannuation into Shield; and represented that Shield had generated returns and outperformed alternatives since 2017 when Shield had only come into existence in May 2021.

Terheci was authorised by MWL from 1 June 2022 to 23 December 2024. Prior, she worked as an adviser for short periods at Aware Super and Equip Super. After leaving MWL she was authorised by Consultum Financial Advisers for just over a month.

"ASIC has reason to believe that Terheci is not a fit and proper person, is not adequately trained or competent and is likely to contravene a financial services law," the regulator said.

The banning order took effect from 25 July 2025.

ASIC said Terheci has applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal for a review of the decision.

Terheci also applied for a stay and confidentiality orders. That application was later withdrawn, and it was formally dismissed by the Tribunal on 3 March 2026. A date for the substantive review application is to be set.

On 25 August 2025, ASIC cancelled MWL's Australian Financial Services licence, banned one of MWL's directors and its responsible manager.

Eight other former MWL financial advisers have been banned by ASIC in respect of advice provided in relation to Shield.

ASIC has also commenced proceedings against MWL, former director Nicholas Maikousis and Imperial Capital Group over alleged Shield advice failures.

In February 2024, ASIC halted new offers of investments in Shield. ASIC made interim stop orders on four product disclosure statements for Shield.

In June 2024, ASIC took action to secure the assets held within Shield. ASIC sought orders to preserve the assets of the scheme so that they may be recovered, to the extent available, for the benefit of investors while the investigation is continuing.

The submission is in response to the ASIC Inquiry Panel, established in July last year, which addresses several of the ASX's ongoing issues, including its governance framework, leadership accountability and investment processes.

Under the proposed plan, the ASX is committed to strengthening its governance and the independence of its clearing and settlement (CS) functions. The ASX established fully independent boards for the CS facilities following the resignation of chief executive Helen Lofthouse and two non-executive directors in early February.

A new organisational model will be established and expand the CS division whilst continuing to receive resourcing and support from the ASX.

Meanwhile, ASIC imposed an additional capital charge of $150 million on the ASX's net tangible assets in its Interim Report. The ASX has responded to this in its half-year results, reducing the 1H26 dividend payout ratio to 75% from 85%, and aims to accumulate the additional capital by 30 June 2027.

The bourse also recognised its investment decisions must "reflect its position as an operator" of critical market infrastructure, which is currently on track based on its latest revision.

Additionally, it is redefining its Accelerate program to ensure it delivers improvements aligned with its stewardship responsibilities by adding governance and independence as a new stream to elevate focus on leadership and culture.

Commenting, ASX chair David Clarke acknowledged that the exchange has fallen short of the standard it upholds, but the proposed framework will deliver a "lasting change".

"As a steward of critical market infrastructure, we are held to high standards, and we acknowledge we have not always met them. We are fully invested in turning this around and delivering lasting change," Clarke said.

"The submission of our plan [on February 27] marks an important step in demonstrating changes we are making. But we also understand it will be our delivery of sustainable outcomes, not words, that will ultimately build confidence."

Moving on, components of the Commitment Plan may vary to reflect any findings from ASIC's final report, he said.

"As a board, we are acutely aware of the need to be highly active and involved with the ASX's transformation. We have substantially increased and deepened engagement by holding additional meetings and leveraging specific director expertise," Clarke continued.

"The board and management are resolute in the turnaround at the ASX. What we've provided to ASIC today sets out clear objectives for how the ASX must transform, and the specific steps we will take to meet the commitments we've made."

The complainant of the lead decision, which AFCA explained the process of for related entities in December 2025, was advised by Next Generation Advice in 2022 to roll over their existing superannuation into establishing a self-managed super fund (SMSF) and invest in three funds, including the Shield Master Fund.

AFCA was told that the firm's advice involved an unnecessary and inappropriate level of risk.

UGC took over responsibility for providing services to the SMSF in May 2023 and, only a year later, in May 2024, advised the SMSF to dispose of investments in Shield and another fund. The complainant claimed that UGC failed to provide timely advice or proper instructions on how to sell the investments.

Both firms are now in liquidation and did not respond to the complaint, AFCA said.

Following a panel review, AFCA confirmed that Next Generation Advice provided inappropriate advice, with its investment strategy lacking in diversification and exposing the consumer to an "undesirable" level of risk.

The result was a direct loss of approximately $180,000.

Meanwhile, UGC failed to act with due care and skill in relation to the consumers' instructions to redeem their investment, resulting in an additional direct loss of $36,000.

"The panel found it was fair for both financial firms to provide compensation for these losses, as well as for Next Generation Advice to make a further contribution towards winding up the SMSF," AFCA said.

However, since both firms are in liquidation, AFCA said it is unclear if the complainants will receive any distributions.

The outcome finalises all lead decisions of entities related to the collapse of Shield and First Guardian, including MWL Financial Services, Financial Services Group Australia, and Interprac Financial Planning.

Seven influencers were sentenced in a UK court this month after pleading guilty to charges of issuing unauthorised financial promotions. It followed a years-long investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which culminated in charges being laid in 2024.

The seven were former The Only Way Is Essex cast members Lauren Goodger and Yazmin Oukhellou, former Love Island contestants Biggs Chris, Eva Zapico, Jamie Clayton and Rebecca Gormley, and former Geordie Shore personality Scott Timlin.

All but Gormley and Zapico were issued a fine of between $1138 and $7117, and all were ordered to pay costs. Under the UK's Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, they could have also been handed prison time.

Goodger received the largest fine and was ordered to pay the most in costs, being $11,000. She made several posts during 2020 and 2021 and was reportedly paid a total of $4300 to do so. Some of the posts achieved as many as 35,000 views.

Goodger has previously been found to breach the UK's Advertising Standards Authority's code, for the irresponsible promotion of a weight loss supplement which allegedly included editing her waist in photographs.

Together, the group of influencers has 4.5 million Instagram followers; Goodger alone has one million. According to reports by UK media, some of their followers invested in the CFD scheme and lost money as a result.

The FCA said as many as 80% of investors in CFDs lose money.

"These influencers betrayed the trust of those who followed them. We'll continue to work with responsible influencers and go after those who put the financial wellbeing of their followers at risk," FCA executive director of enforcement and market oversight Steve Smart said.

Commenting, law firm Lewis Silkin said the fines issued to the influencers were "surprisingly small" and "frankly, derisory".

"... the penalties bore no relation to the potential consequences these influencers' posts had on their followers," it said.

"Even if just 2% of their 4.5 million followers lost an average of just £50 each, that would mean their total losses were £4,500,000."

Since its establishment, AFCA has received more than 634,000 complaints.

The increase in complaints was spread across all financial products, including the demise of Shield and First Guardian Master Funds across the financial advice and superannuation sectors, AFCA said.

Large-scale collapses in the financial advice sector led to a 58% increase in investment and advice complaints, including a 59% increase from self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs). Approximately 2162 complaints were related to the collapse of the Shield and First Guardian.

"Shield and First Guardian complaints will continue to be a key focus for AFCA throughout 2026. We have now issued 44 decisions, including five lead decisions, and have 500 simultaneous investigations underway, and we remain firmly committed to progressing these matters as quickly as we can," chief ombudsman and chief executive David Locke said.

Separately, AFCA has issued its 1000 Dixon Advisory determination, which is considered the "largest single batch" of complaints AFCA has ever managed. Around 900 matters are currently still under investigation.

"We know that large-scale financial firm collapses can have a profound impact on people and their families. We're working through these matters as quickly and carefully as we can, and we're making steady progress," Locke added.

Meanwhile, the 29% rise in super complaints (7,687) in 2025 was driven by delays in handling claims and disputes over claim decisions.

While complaints about death benefits have remained steady, the main pressure points were timeliness and transparency in the claims process, AFCA explained.

The top five issues reported in 2025 include delays in claim handling (9274); misleading product/service information (8457); service issues (7296); denial of claim (6362); and fees or charges (6148).

Despite a significant increase in complaints, AFCA has also saw a record number of refunds and compensation for the year. The authority secured $643 million for complainants, which was a 120% increase from the previous calendar year.

"This data highlights the sustained demand for our service, and with a new Banking Code now in force, and major reforms underway across general and life insurance, this is a pivotal moment for the financial services sector to lift standards and deliver more consistent, accessible and customer-focused outcomes for their customers," Locke said.

ASIC said the increase in ROMs was driven largely by corporate governance concerns, including failures to provide company records, insolvency matters and shareholder issues.

Corporate governance matters accounted for 40% of the issues, including fraud allegations, corporate governance issues, registered liquidator conduct, insolvency matters, shareholder issues, reporting issues and failure to provide books and records on company activities and property to registered liquidators.

Financial services and retail investor issues totalled 44%, relating to credit issues, general licence obligations, unregistered managed investment schemes, unlicensed provision of financial services conduct, and other conduct related to advice, insurance, and misleading and deceptive or unconscionable behaviour.

"The figures point to an increase in concerns being raised about corporate governance issues," ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court said.

"They underscore ASIC's enforcement priorities, which include tackling governance and directors' duties failures, reaffirming that stronger governance remains a top priority for ASIC."

Court said robust governance isn't just good practice, it's good for business and for the country.

ASIC said it has several active investigations into governance failures and directors' duties.

"Reports of misconduct continue to be an important source of intelligence for ASIC," Court said.

"They help us identify key issues for consumers, investors and creditors, and guide our decisions on potential criminal and civil action."

Court said ASIC continues to welcome reports and tip-offs from the public.

ASIC also released its six-monthly Enforcement and Regulatory update, outlining that the regulator has secured hundreds of millions in penalties and remediation.

ASIC secured a record $349.8 million in court-ordered civil penalties in the second half of 2025 following successful cases against some of Australia's largest companies and super trustees including ANZ, NAB, Cbus, RAMS and Australian Unity Funds Management.

ASIC's work will also see a total of $583 million returned to millions of Australians through refunds. This includes the court enforceable undertakings that saw Macquarie pay $321 million to around 3000 affected Shield Master Fund investors and Netwealth pay $101 million to more than 1000 affected First Guardian Master Fund investors.

"ASIC has secured record penalties in response to serious misconduct and is protecting Australians and safeguarding trust and confidence in Australia's financial system," ASIC chair Joe Longo said.

"Today, ASIC is one of the most active law enforcement agencies in the country. We are taking more cases to court, achieving record penalties, and protecting consumers."

ASIC said in the six-month period, 123 investigations were launched and 518 surveillances were completed; 23 new civil proceedings were filed, 11 new criminal prosecutions were commenced, and 17 criminal convictions were recorded against individuals; and $6.9 million in infringement notices and $137,315 in criminal fines were paid.

Fundhost is the responsible entity of the Polen Capital Global Growth Fund.

ASIC said between 15 March 2021 and 20 February 2025, a performance chart depicted the performance of the Polen Capital Focus Growth Strategy Fund and the fund against the MSCI ACWI Net Total Return Index since 31 December 2014, based on data that was updated monthly by Fundhost.

ASIC said the performance chart combined the performance of the strategy and fund, as a result showing the fund outperformed the index since its inception on 15 March 2021, when in fact this was not the case.

The performance chart did not appear on Fundhost's website, but rather on Montgomery Investment Management's website as the investment manager for the fund.

Fundhost paid the infringement notice on 13 February 2026. ASIC said payment of an infringement notice is not an admission of liability.

Fundhost provides responsible entity, trustee, fund administration, registry, operations and support services to boutique Australian and international fund managers, including Datt Capital, DMX Asset Management, Montaka Global Investments, Montgomery and Polen Capital.

Fundhost awarded SS&C Technologies a mandate to support its fund services operations in June last year.

As part of the arrangement, Fundhost leverages SS&C's proprietary platform to streamline its unit registry and fund administration operations.

As at around June 2025, Fundhost oversaw $2 billion in assets.

ASIC said the aim of the review is to address practices that inappropriately or unnecessarily encourage consumers to switch their superannuation, saying it is concerned that consumers may be being exposed to risk of significant losses.

It will look at the financial advice practices and groups using lead generation services and the nature of the arrangements. Where needed, ASIC said it will take disruptive and enforcement action.

It comes on the back of the collapses of the First Guardian Master Fund and Shield Master Fund, both of which were spruiked by financial advisers who used lead generation services and ultimately convinced investors to roll their superannuation into a self-managed super fund and invest in the vehicles.

As part of the review, ASIC is naming the businesses, websites, authorised representatives, financial advisers and licensees involved in lead generation, including those serving as referral partners or engaging lead generators as of July 2024. While this does not mean these businesses or people have engaged in unlawful conduct, ASIC said it serves to warn consumers that they exercise caution.

Among the known entities to be involved in lead generation or referrals are Big Dog Marketing, Check My Super, Lead Wise, and Superannuation Specialists Australia.

The list of advice licensees or corporate authorised representatives known to have acquired leads is dominated by Lifestyle Asset Management and Interprac Financial Planning, however Synchron and MiPlan Advisory also feature.

"ASIC warns that lead generators that mislead consumers, utilise high pressure tactics or provide financial services without a licence will risk contravening the law. Licensed persons or entities that engage the services of lead generators acting in this way, share this risk," the regulator said.

"ASIC is putting participants on notice and will consider taking enforcement action where we detect evidence of contraventions of the law."

In early 2024, ASIC conducted a similar review into cold-calling and social media click-bait urging consumers to switch their super arrangements and the advice groups and super trustees that were benefiting.

At that time, it said any licensee that has engaged a high-pressure referral source should consider how that arrangement fits within their obligations to act efficiently, fairly and honestly. They were also urged to consider their supervisory arrangements and to ensure they know who within their network is using such services.

The findings of this review came as First Guardian suspended redemptions and applications and shortly after investment in Shield was blocked by ASIC by way of a stop order.

The likes of Super Consumers Australia (SCA) and Super Members Council continue to call for a ban on lead generation for superannuation and financial advice, including extending the anti-hawking legislation to cover financial advice.

As it stands, the anti-hawking legislation only applies to the sale of financial products, including insurance and superannuation, a loophole that is deliberately exploited by some lead generation firms that specifically structure their business so as to not require an AFSL.

ASIC said it will continue to update the list of known entities as the information comes to hand, noting that some names on the list may have ceased operations or lead generation activities by the time their details are published.

The cancellation took effect on February 11.

ASIC found that the securities dealer had sustained "serious" breaches of its duties under s912A of the Corporations Act 2001 in its operation, including the failure to undertake due diligence prior to the appointment of CARs. ASIC said the business failed to monitor the websites and marketing of CARs, and maintain compliance, breach and incident registers.

Pulse Markets also failed to provide financial statements on separate occasions and failed to pay its industry funding levy for FY24, ASIC said.

The entity also did not undergo an audit of its compliance with the financial conditions of its licence for the past two financial years, while lacking resources, including staffing, to provide the financial services under the licence's guidelines.

ASIC said Pulse Markets can apply for a review of ASIC's decision.

Pulse Markets is a Brisbane-based securities dealer and held an AFSL since 7 June 2002.

On its website, Pulse Markets said it specialises in ECMs/corporate advisory, derivatives, and managed discretionary accounts, providing "a range of options" for self-managed superannuation funds (SMSF), sophisticated, and institutional investors.

In 2023, Pulse Markets was required to compensate a complainant to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) for almost $130,000 after offering risky investment products that were only available to wholesale investors, even though the complainant was a retail investor.

APRA chair John Lonsdale told the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that "trustees are the only part of the chain of involvement in the Shield and First Guardian situation that APRA has the power to regulate."

"To be clear, APRA does not regulate and could not have regulated Shield and First Guardian, which were managed investment schemes subject to regulation by ASIC," he said.

"APRA oversees around 56 superannuation trustees who collectively have 81 superannuation funds. Combined, they have over $3 trillion in APRA-regulated assets ($417 billion via platforms). This covers more than 23 million member accounts across 901 products with almost 27,000 investment options across the industry."

Over 2025, APRA undertook a review of the major platform trustees, which collectively represent approximately 95% of funds under management for platform products.

"The scope of that review was broader than only First Guardian and Shield. The review identified weaknesses in the practices of some trustees. The gaps were in areas such as onboarding practices, monitoring of investment options, and remedial action where member outcomes are not being delivered," he said.

The collapse of the two funds has affected 11,000 members and their $1 billion in retirement savings, according to ASIC.

In December 2025, APRA accepted a court enforceable undertaking from Netwealth and imposed licence conditions on Diversa Trustees and Equity Trustees to address investment governance-related concerns.

The panel further asked APRA to detail how it engages with the platforms and how it enforces action.

APRA acting executive director of life, private health insurance and superannuation Peter Kohlhagen explained: "The way we approach this matter was to request information, using our information gathering powers, assess our information against our standards to see whether or not they were up to our required standards."

Kohlhagen clarified this involved engagement with the entity itself and gathering information rather than applying it to the products.

"What we're not doing is examining each one of those products on the platform," added Lonsdale. "What we do though, is set rules [on] how those products are onboarded, the monitoring that needs to happen, how they're off boarded. We are in the rural setting space, and we expect trustees to adhere to those rules."

Lonsdale also pointed out that when APRA takes enforcement action, it found "trustees are not at the level that we need them to be at [to follow] the rules."

Yesterday, Treasurer Jim Chalmers introduced the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 to the lower house, which includes the boosting of the low-income super tax offset (LISTO), and the super tax concession reform.

In response, SMSFA chief executive Peter Burgess said the Bill improves the integrity of the earnings calculation in multiple metrics, he is disappointed that other substantive issues raised in its submission appear to have fallen on "deaf ears".

"Of particular concern are scenarios where due to market movements, and other unforeseen circumstances, a member's superannuation balance significantly declines during the income year," he said.

"For Division 296 purposes, their tax liability will be calculated on their balance at the start of the income year meaning they could pay Division 296 tax on amounts that no longer exist.

"With the Bill now tabled in Parliament, and in the interest of due process through the normal parliamentary process, we encourage the government to release the draft regulations as soon as possible."

Meanwhile, deputy opposition leader Ted O'Brien slammed the push to legislate the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, also tabled yesterday, claiming that it is viewing super as a pool of capital for political purposes.

The bill was read the second time to introduce a reform on advertising and stapling of super products during employee onboarding.

O'Brien agreed that the Coalition supports many of the measures contained in the bill but it should never have been "stitched together" with unrelated measures.

"Labor has effectively cobbled together a grab bag of largely unrelated measures and wrapped them up around a contentious measure - a measure that it knows the coalition will oppose, and that is a change to superannuation which restricts choice, reduces competition and rewards union aligned industry funds," O'Brien said.

"Labor has bundled together these various measures not because it makes good policy sense but because it suits Labor politically."

"The coalition understands this instinctively. Superannuation is part of a worker's pay. It is not a gift... Labor sees super differently. Labor increasingly treats super as a pool of capital it can direct, constrain or tax for its own political purposes, and this bill is part of that longstanding pattern."

The Corpay subsidiary misclassified over 2800 retail clients in structured foreign exchange derivatives as wholesale clients. It also failed to maintain adequate systems, record keeping and monitoring procedures for the classification of its retail and wholesale clients.

The investigation also found that Cambridge did not promptly remediate affected clients for amounts that are projected to total millions of dollars.

ASIC further found the firm failed to maintain adequate arrangements to manage conflicts of interest, including remuneration arrangements for its representatives, and that it failed to maintain adequate risk management systems and adequate human resources to carry out supervision, compliance, and risk management functions.

Finally, ASIC found Cambridge breached its financial resource requirements.

The additional conditions require the firm to prepare a comprehensive remediation plan to address its foreign exchange derivatives business' compliance failures and remediate the misclassified retail clients.

The company will also have to appoint an independent expert to report on the adequacy of its remediation plan, including its remediation of the misclassified clients.

The independent expert will need to also assess the operational effectiveness of Cambridge's remediation activities, to ensure similar issues are not repeated in future.

In cooperation with ASIC, Cambridge has consented to the additional licence conditions imposed.

An investigation found that during his tenure with MWL, McPherson recommended some clients invest most of their superannuation into the Shield Master Fund (Shield), all classes of which were deemed high risk.

Finding McPherson to be not fit, not proper and not competent, and likely to contravene financial services law again, ASIC imposed a four-year ban.

McPherson is prevented from providing financial services, controlling an entity that carries on a financial services business or performing any function involved in the carrying on of a financial services business.

The ban is one of many being imposed on former MWL financial advisers and is the latest in a series of regulatory interventions following the Shield and First Guardian Master Fund (First Guardian) collapse.

In August 2025, ASIC cancelled MWL's Australian Financial Services licence, banning one of the firm's directors and its responsible manager.

ASIC has also sought to commence proceedings against MWL former director Nicholas Maikousis and Imperial Capital Group over alleged Shield advice failures.

Treasury of the Secretary Jenny Wilkinson commissioned the independent review after it was requested by AOFM's chief executive Anna Hughes.

Former RBA deputy chair and the current chair of Funds SA Guy Debelle will lead the review with the mandate to uncover the effectiveness of the organisation, as well as its operations and capability.

The sovereign debt manager has about $993 billion of securities on issue, the lion's share of which are treasury bonds.

According to Wilkinson, the AOFM undertook an extensive organisational design process during 2025 to clarify roles and accountabilities, reduce complexity, and implement a structure that is fit for purpose.

The review will not only examine the AOFM's operations, capability and organisational effectiveness, Wilkinson said it will find if it is delivering its intended outcomes for the government.

According to the Terms of Reference, this will delve into the AOFM's approach to financing the operations of government, including the development and delivery of the annual issuance (borrowing) program.

How effectively the AOFM manages the cash portfolio will be under the microscope, including the development and implementation of its liquidity management strategy, and if its frameworks for risk management and compliance are fit for purpose.

The review will also look at the external reporting and governance structures between the AOFM and Treasury.

"In considering these matters the review should have regard to the AOFM's organisational structure, business processes and skill and experience of its workforce," Terms of Reference read.

Currently, the AOFM serves to meet the government's annual financing task while considering costs and risks and ensuring it will always meet its cash outlay requirements.

It also conducts market-facing activities to support a well-functioning Australian Government Securities (AGS) market.

At the review's culmination, the Secretary to the Treasury will receive a report of the findings and any recommendations by March 31.

As part of is H1 report, the major bank gave an update on its ongoing superannuation and advice-related class actions.

CBA said it still has two superannuation class actions before the courts. The first was filed in 2018 against Colonial First state Investments Limited (CFSIL) and CBA.

The claim related to investment in cash and deposit options in the Colonial First State FirstChoice Superannuation Trust (FirstChoice Fund) and Commonwealth Essential Super. It was later expanded to include Avanteos Investments Limited (AIL).

The class action claims members invested in cash and deposit options provided by CBA received a lower interest rate than they could have received had CFSL/AIL offered similar products made available in the market by another bank.

CBA said the court has ordered that mediation between the parties take place by 26 June 2026, with the matter listed for trial on 9 November 2026.

The second superannuation class action was filed in 2020 again CFSIL and the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited (CMLA).

The class action alleges that CFSIL did not act in the best interests of members when it took out group insurance policies from CMLA.

CBA said in September 2025, the parties reach an in-principle settlement to resolve the class action for $140 million, with no admission of liability. The settlement is subject to court approval and has been listed for an approval hearing 25 March 2026.

CBA also settled one of its advice class actions. The action was filed in 2020 against Commonwealth Financial Planning (CFP), Financial Wisdom Limited (FWL) and CMLA.

The claim related to certain CMLA life insurance policies recommended to clients by financial advisers. The action alleged CFP and FWL or their financial advisers breached their duties and prioritised their own interests over the interests of their client in recommending the policies.

CBA said in November 2025, the parties reached an in-principle settlement for $22.5 million, with no admission of liability.

Another advice-related class action commences against Count Financial in August 2020 was dismissed by the Federal Court in May 2025, with the order for legal costs to be awarded to Count Financial. However, CBA said an appeal was lodged by the application and the matter will be back in court on 26 March 2026.

Many class actions were launched off the back of the Banking and Financial Services Royal Commission. In 2017, because of revelations from the Royal Commission, CBA was ordered by APRA to examine whether governance, culture and accountability practices at CBA were to blame.

APRA's final report into CBA was published in May 2018, but over the following years, CBA had IBM Consulting act as an independent reviewer to ensure the bank addressing all APRA's recommendations. Today, CBA published the outcomes of that monitoring.

Overall, IBM said CBA had achieved the desired outcomes and those outcomes had been sustained even as the bank continued to focus on its growth aspirations, which is said creates "inherent tensions".

"CBA continues to operate within a series of inherent tensions, including protecting its organisational reputation while pursuing growth an innovation, balancing a learning culture with consequence management, and settling effective guardrails without becoming overly prescriptive and removing g the ability to excise judgement," the report said.

"At an organisational level, CBA has generally navigated these tensions effectively. However, given the scale and complexity of CBA's operations, the ongoing challenge remains to continue uplifting practices, consistently applying learnings across the organisation, and leveraging the governance foundations to share insights and best practice."

ASIC brought its case against FIIG Securities in March 2025 after it found the firm failed to have adequate cyber risk management systems in place for about four years to June 2023.

As a result, between 19 May 2023 and 8 June 2023, a hacker was able to infiltrate FIIG's systems for about three weeks, stealing sensitive client information such as names, addresses, birth date, driver's licences, passports, bank accounts, and tax file numbers. The data was then released on the dark web.

The breach occurred after a FIIG employee downloaded a .zip file containing malware while browsing the internet and went undetected by FIIG, even after it received firewall email alerts flagging suspicious activity.

FIIG was notified by the Australian Signals Directorate's Australian Cyber Security Centre while the attack was occurring but waited a further week before acting.

In total, about 385GB of confidential data was stolen and some 18,000 clients were put at risk. At the time, FIIG had about $3 billion in client assets under management.

FIIG admitted it failed to comply with its obligations and that its security measures were inadequate. It also admitted complying with its own policies and procedures could have resulted in the breach being detected earlier and prevented client data being exposed.

ASIC said FIIG did not allocate the necessary financial resources to ensure its people were suitably qualified and experiences, nor implement adequate technological resources to manage cybersecurity.

For example, it did not have multi-factor authentication in place for remote access users, nor did it have qualified IT personnel monitoring threat alerts to identify and respond to threats. There was also no mandatory cybersecurity training for staff, and its cyber incident response plan was not tested on an annual basis.

FIIG was ordered by the Federal Court to pay a penalty of $2.5 million as well as $500,000 towards ASIC's legal costs. FIIG must also engage an independent expert to undertake a compliance programme in relation to its cybersecurity measures and processes.

"Cyber-attacks and data breaches are escalating in both scale and sophistication, and inadequate controls put clients and companies at real risk," ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court said.

"ASIC expects financial services licensees to be on the front foot every day to protect their clients. FIIG wasn't - and they put thousands of clients at risk.

"In this case, the consequences far exceeded what it would have cost FIIG to implement adequate controls in the first place."

This marks the first time the Federal Court has imposed civil penalties for cyber security failures under the general AFSL obligations, which she said sets a clear expectation regarding cyber resilience.

"Clients entrust licensees with sensitive and confidential information, and that trust carries clear responsibilities," Court said.

Since the incident, FIIG Securities was acquired by AUSIEX. In response to the judgement, AUSIEX chief executive Patrick Salis said the company accepts the ruling and will comply with all obligations.

"We cooperated fully throughout the process and have continued to strengthen our systems, governance and controls. No client funds were impacted, and we remain focused on supporting our clients and maintaining the highest standards of information security," he said.

This time, the Enhancing oversight and governance of managed investment schemes consultation focuses on governance and oversight of registered MISs used by retail investors, particularly how ASIC's role can be improved.

Given that imposing additional obligations on responsible entities (REs) of MISs will unlikely prevent failures akin to Shield and First Guardian, Treasury believes proposing to reform "ASIC's ability to detect and respond to poor governance and other scheme risks" will make a difference.

A new MIS regulatory framework will have stricter compliance plan requirements, such as a detailed description of the nature of the MIS and its investment strategy, and information outlining how significant risks will be identified, monitored and managed.

Existing audit and assurance standards should be mandatory for auditors of compliance plans, while REs should notify ASIC of the appointment, removal or resignation of committee members.

This is in addition to increasing ASIC's data collection powers on the retail MIS sector and forcing superannuation trustees to report suspicious or anomalous super switching behaviour to the regulator.

Meanwhile, Treasury asks if REs should have more specific financial resource requirements be imposed in addition to the current general obligation to have adequate resources in place.

By ASIC's count, there were 3587 MISs as at June 2025.

"According to 2021 figures, retail investors make up about 5% of overall direct investment in MISs, noting retail investors also invest indirectly through intermediary structures or have indirect exposure through their superannuation fund," the consultation paper read.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers copped criticism last December for sitting on MIS reform recommendations from a review that kicked off in 2023 and concluded in 2024.

Treasury admitted that prior reviews and inquiries have raised concerns about the adequacy of the regulatory framework for MISs.

"Common themes include concerns about the marketing of high-risk schemes to retail investors, conflicted financial advice, poor scheme governance, the competing interests that can exist between investors and the responsible entity, and certain products being too complex for retail investors to understand despite disclosure requirements," Treasury said.

Previous reviews recommended several changes that include providing ASIC with limited powers to alter a scheme's constitution to ensure it complies with the law.

However, in light of the Shield and First Guardian failures, whereby some 11,000 people invested over $1 billion, Treasury said the alleged practices by employees "highlighted the need for further action to protect consumers in the superannuation and financial services sectors."

Treasury is taking submissions until February 27.

The ACCI released a report, Path to Prosperity: Slashing Red Tape to Unlock a Brighter Future, highlighting the increased complexity of Australia's regulatory framework.

The rising regulatory burden is estimated to have added at least $5.5 billion in business-related compliance costs over the last five financial years, the report found.

Regulatory reform stands as one of the most significant opportunities to unlock productivity gains and secure Australia's future prosperity, it said.

"Red tape has become a handbrake on Australia's productivity and competitiveness," ACCI chief executive Andrew McKellar said.

"Businesses are buckling under the weight of excessive compliance obligations, which are stifling innovation, deterring investment, and holding back economic growth.

"We need clear acknowledgement from the government that red tape is a serious economic problem, and this should be coupled with a 'growth-first' directive to all government departments and regulators."

Speaking at an event for the release of the report, Minister for Financial Services Daniel Mulino acknowledges Australia has a red tape problem, specifically pointing to increased regulation in the financial services sector.

"There are many worthwhile pieces of regulation being implemented often in parallel, which then often interact with each other in ways that were not necessarily thought through in each of the individual silos," Mulino said.

"That's a reflection of the complexity of government, it's a reflection of the complexity of our society, but it is something I think that we need to acknowledge and be aware of.

"I don't want to constantly come back to financial services, but it's something which I'm all too aware of in my day-to-day job, and I think it does bear out some of these lessons."

Mulino said there is a "coordination challenge" between different regulators of the financial services industry, but the government is working to streamline processes.

"The Regulatory Initiatives Grid was something which came out of a major inquiry into competition and economic dynamism in the previous term, and that's something which forces government to basically publish and acknowledge all of the different strands of regulation across government, but also all the different regulators in the financial services sector," he said.

"Now the Regulatory Initiatives Grid in financial services I think isn't the final answer, it's a work in progress. But I think even putting out into the public realm all the different pieces of regulation that have been implemented or are in the pipeline has been a very useful initiative. And that was something which all stakeholders in financial services, large and small and across all the different sectors, called for."

Mulino added that many regulators in the financial services sector are collecting the same data on the entities that fall under their remit, and the government is considering ways in which that data could be aligned.

"There might be very valid reasons why each of the regulators are asking for each of the datasets they're asking for. But if they're asking for it in a staggered way and each of the companies has to then regenerate that data, or if they're asking for extremely similar datasets but with slightly different definitions or slightly different parameters, then it can add a great deal of red tape," Mulino said.

"This is an issue in financial services where there are multiple regulators, but it's an issue I know across many, many areas of government."

Valvo was convicted last year of engaging in dishonest conduct after he stole $110,000 from clients' Wealthtrac superannuation accounts under the guise of adviser fee forms that authorised the withdrawal.

These withdrawals were not approved, signed or consented to by the clients; the signatures were reportedly sticky-taped on the documents.

The conduct impacted 12 clients and allegedly involved the creation of fictitious client file notes detailing conversations which purported to record some of his clients' consent to having the fees withdrawn.

Valvo was also charging most of the impacted clients monthly ongoing service fees at the same time, ASIC said.

The conduct occurred between July 2019 and January 2020. During this time, he was a representative of the now-defunct Nextgen Financial Group, where he joined in September 2013 and left in September 2021.

In 2023 ASIC was successful in having his assets frozen and he was barred from leaving the country. At that time, it was said he had tried to obtain as much as $750,000. In 2024, he was charged with 12 counts of dishonest conduct.

In May 2025 he was handed a three-year suspended sentence on the basis that he complies with a good behaviour bond for five years, pay a $20,000 fine, and make reparations to Oasis Fund Management.

Interestingly, in 2019 Valvo appeared on an episode of A Current Affair claiming that he himself had been the victim of a scam around the same time he was dipping into clients' super.

Valvo said he lost $50,000 through a fake trading platform. His family and friends also lost money from the scam.

He told the program that he had been "in the [financial planning] game for 35 years" and if an "influential financial adviser" like him couldn't spot a scam then "Joe Blow out there hasn't got a hope in hell."

While he was an adviser, Valvo was also performing as an MC, stand-up comic and celebrity impressionist. According to a talent site, he has over 40 years' experience and continues to work as both today.

Valvo is permanently banned from providing any financial services, controlling a financial services business, or working within a financial services business.

Patrick Nong was found to have engaged in conduct in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to a financial product or service after, on three occasions, he signed documents on clients' behalf without their knowledge.

ASIC said Nong used systems to record a meeting and dishonestly sign client consent forms before sending them to be processed. The conduct resulted in fees being deducted from the super accounts of four clients, despite the clients having not met with Nong or signed any documents,

The conduct occurred while Nong was working at 360 Financial Strategists and licensed through AMP Financial Planning, now Akumin Financial Planning.

ASIC determined Nong was not fit and proper, nor did he have the honesty, character, trustworthiness, or integrity required to be one and participate in the financial services sector.

Prior to AMP, Nong was licensed through GWM Adviser Services for just over a year. His authorisation under AMP was revoked in November 2024. The conduct that saw him banned took place between October 2023 and September 2024.

According to his LinkedIn, before becoming a financial adviser Nong worked as a tutor at the University of Canberra and then worked in risk, governance and auditing at consulting firm Protiviti.

He describes himself on his profile as "a knowledgeable, trustworthy adviser who's always up to date on the latest in the financial world and who's always in your corner (someone you'd tell your mum about!)."

The MDP found that Petra had breached the market integrity rules by failing to provide accurate information, leading to one client appearing as multiple clients on 3632 occasions.

It was caused by a system update and affected 14,741 trades between 3 March 2022 and 5 December 2023, ASIC said.

Following an ASIC query regarding some inaccuracies in Petra's origin of order references (to identify the clients) in December 2021, Petra consulted Iress to implement an automated reconfiguration to all client orders in March 2022.

On 16 November 2023, ASIC questioned whether numerous trades executed in a particular security were conducted for the same client, to which Petra responded on 4 December 2023 by identifying that the earlier system upgrade did not resolve the origin of order issue ASIC had initially raised, and it may "have occurred across a broad range of clients."

Petra rectified the issue after the market closed the following day.

The MDP said the change in March 2022 may have been done "in the mistaken belief that it was complying with the origin of order requirements in its regulatory data obligations, having not made its own further enquiries to determine whether the approach would comply."

The panel also argued that Petra should have conducted periodic reviews and testing of its systems to remain compliant.

It noted that the misreporting continued for at least one year and nine months, and may have lasted longer had ASIC not identified the issue. Although the MDP concluded that Petra possesses "a good compliance culture", the alleged contravention was "significant".

Petra has subsequently complied and paid the infringement in full.

Compliance with the infringement notice is not an admission of guilt or liability, and by doing so, Petra Capital is not taken to have contravened subsection 798H (1) of the Corporations Act 2001, ASIC said.

The maximum pecuniary penalty payable under ran infringement notice in relation to an alleged contravention of subsection 798H (1) of the Act, by reason of contravening Rule 7.4.2 of the Rules is $3,330,000 for each contravention occurring between 1 July 2020 and 31 December 2022, $4,125,000 for each contravention between 1 January 2023 and 30 June 2023 and $4,695,000 for each contravention between 1 July 2023 and 6 November 2024.

In this case, the complainant received financial advice from Interprac in June 2022 to establish an account in the Macquarie Super Fund to roll over their existing super into the account and invest most of their super into Shield.

The complainant deemed the advice inappropriate.

In response, Interprac denied any responsibility and said the trustee of Macquarie Super Fund, Macquarie Investment Management Limited (MIML), has publicly acknowledged it breached the law and has made a remediation payment to the complainant, which amounts to the complainant's net capital investment into Shield.

Interprac advised that the complainant should pursue the loss in investment earnings with the trustee.

However, upon assessing the complaint, the AFCA panel found the adviser did not make reasonable inquiries into the complainant's circumstances, and failed to adequately understand the super platform and its investment menu.

The adviser also did not seek an alternative fund that offered lower risk, fees and costs.

"While the trustee of the Macquarie Super Fund has already compensated the complainant for the capital amount they invested in the Shield Master Fund, Interprac's conduct caused the complainant to incur a loss," AFCA said.

"Macquarie Super Fund is not solely responsible for the complainant's loss. The complainant's investment in the Macquarie Super Fund and the Shield Master Fund was a direct result of the financial firm's inappropriate advice.

"The complainant could, in fact, seek their total direct loss, including the capital loss from Interprac, had the trustee of the Macquarie Super Fund not already compensated them."

The panel determined Interprac must pay approximately $120,000 in compensation to the complainant, plus relevant interest from September 2025 to the date of payment, within 28 days if Interprac accepts the determination, AFCA said.

AFCA initially published the lead decision for various advice businesses that were involved with Shield and First Guardian to streamline over 1800 complaints in December.

The outcomes for Financial Services Group Australia and MWL Financial Services were also recently released, with United Global Capital and Next Generation Advice remaining as the only entities yet to receive their lead decision outcomes.

Identical to the January 2023 discussion paper, the draft legislation proposes to enable victims and survivors to access, via a court order, to additional personal or salary sacrifice super contributions made by the offender if compensation remains unpaid after 12 months.

Historically, many offenders have deliberately hidden millions of dollars' worth of assets in superannuation to avoid paying compensation to victims.

Under the proposed legislation, victim-survivors will be able to apply to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to identify any potential eligible super prior to seeking access, it said. It would only apply to additional super contributions made by the perpetrator over a set period, not mandated employer contributions.

If successful, super funds would then have 10 business days to make the payment.

Unfulfilled historical compensation orders brought into existence before the measure's commencement will be eligible if they remain legally enforceable and were awarded following criminal conviction or a finding of guilt for child sexual abuse, Treasury confirmed.

These reforms will also be complemented by amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to allow compensation debts to survive an offenders' bankruptcy.

However, under the proposed law, there are circumstances in which a court cannot order a victim be compensated via the perpetrator's super. This includes where another party has made an application for an order of bankruptcy against the perpetrator or if they are yet to be discharged from a bankruptcy order; if family law proceedings involving property splitting are underway; or where proceeds of crime proceedings or proceedings relating to corruption offences have been launched. Here, the victim must await the outcome of such instances before an order can be made.

Commenting, minister for financial services Daniel Mulino said convicted perpetrators will no longer be able to escape compensation orders.

"Victims of child sexual abuse deserve to receive the court-ordered compensation they are entitled to. This Bill establishes a clear principle that convicted perpetrators cannot use the superannuation system to shield assets from lawful compensation orders," Mulino said.

"It reflects the tireless work of survivors and advocates who have long called for stronger accountability and justice."

Meanwhile, attorney-general Michelle Rowland said the government will do everything it can to crack down on perpetrators committing these acts.

"There can be no opportunity for criminals who are convicted of child sexual abuse to avoid paying compensation to their victims," she said.

"I look forward to the public, including victim survivors having their voices heard as the government consults on this vital legislation."

The consultation is open until February 20.

The initial proposal was welcomed by a state government, as well as various associations which have urged the legislation be extended across other crimes.

Hundreds of retail investors were led to believe they were able to invest in the fund even though the product may not have been suitable for them under three Target Market Determinations (TMDs).

Australian Unity, as the responsible entity of the fund, admitted in court that it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure interests in the fund were only distributed to investors who matched the criteria outlined in the TMDs.

On 89 occasions Australian Unity said it issued units without requiring investors to submit, as part of their application, a completed questionnaire. This was to determine if they were within the target market described in the TMDs.

On 239 occasions, Australian Unity did not review submitted questionnaires to determine whether they were within the target market described in the fund TMDs.

The contraventions took place between 5 October 2021 and 5 October 2023.

Australian Unity in response said: "AUFM co-operated with ASIC in its investigation, and AUFM agreed that it contravened s 994E(3) of the Corporations Act when it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that its issuing of interests in the Fund to retail clients was undertaken consistently with the fund TMDs. AUFM will establish a program to remediate impacted customers, who will be contacted separately in due course."

Justice Moshinsky concluded that the employee tasked with ensuring compliance with the DDO regime or the "DDO project manager" did not have appropriate experience or training.

"This reflects poorly on the 'compliance culture' of AUFM at the time. It suggests that AUFM did not take its regulatory obligations sufficiently seriously," the judge said.

Following the decision, Australian Unity was made to display an adverse publicity notice on the fund's website.

In considering the penalty, Justice Moshinsky took into account AUFM's processes and governance systems and said such improvements "make it less likely that another similar contravention will occur".

ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court commented there is no value to investors if product issuers develop a TMD for a product but fail to take steps to ensure that those products are distributed consistently with it.

"The failure to assess product suitability for investors can expose them to products which are not appropriate for them and create the potential for financial loss," she said.

"This outcome sends a clear message to product issuers that there are significant consequences for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that investors are within a product's target market before they issue interests in the product."

The submission highlighted the need to create new avenues to make financial advice available to more Australians, with the group believing its members are more than capable of filling the void.

"Our members are highly trained and skilled, and can assist, but the regulatory environment needs urgent reform to allow our members in public practice to assist their clients with their everyday financial challenges," the submission read.

"There is currently a gap between the number of individuals needing advice and the number of financial advisers available to close the gap."

The body noted that the retirement sector, specifically in superannuation, has been changing rapidly, with measures such as the Division 296 super tax coming into force soon.

Although recent changes to the super tax were welcomed by the group, CA ANZ remains concerned about the new policy settings, "including the fact that the additional costs superannuation funds will incur initially to implement, and each year thereafter to administer this tax measure, will be paid by all fund members."

Other concerns include the tax requiring "extensive" ongoing data modelling by super funds and impacted individuals, as well as some design features of the proposed capital gains tax relief.

The body is also worried about the potential for double taxing dividends and distributions with franking credits, as well as smaller super funds needing to pay on "notional" income with assets "that they have no beneficial ownership of."

"We remain of the strong belief that this tax will be expensive for individuals, superannuation funds, tax agents, financial advisers and for the ATO to administer, and will raise little net revenue when all these costs are considered," the submission said.

As a solution, CA ANZ is calling on the government to review financial adviser education standards to create new avenues for advice and allow chartered accountants to provide strategic financial advice without additional licensing requirements.

It also suggests that the government replace the annual super contribution caps with lifetime caps and discontinue the Better Targeted Superannuation Tax Concessions policy.

Meanwhile, in the longer term, CA ANZ wants the tax base reformed, a thorough review of all current retirement-related tax and transfer payments policies, including aged care subsidies, and super laws, in an equivalent way to its recently completed Financial Services Legislation Inquiry.

ASIC said its action relates to breaches of obligations and standards, including failures to comply with auditing and assurance standards and to provide annual statements.

Some also failed to advise ASIC of changes to their contact details on the public register of SMSF auditors, did not respond to regulatory compliance requests or did not carry out enough audit work to meet the practical experience requirements.

Between 1 July 2025 and 31 December 2025, ASIC cancelled the registration of 22 SMSF auditors. Of these, nine were cancelled over a failure to perform any significant audit work during the last five years, ASIC noted. These auditors were Yvonne Ching, Patrick Hoey, Christopher Leech, Rochelle Massih, Barry Mendel, Rick Siew, Thien Siow, John Whiting and Weifeng Zhu.

ASIC also disqualified four auditors and imposed additional conditions on two.

Andy Choi, Robert Morey, Andrew Orphanides, and Ermis Yianni were disqualified from acting as SMSF auditors.

Orphanides and Yianni were disqualified because they continued auditing SMSFs whose financial statements were prepared by staff in their own firm, ASIC said.

Since 2020, auditors are explicitly prohibited from auditing SMSF financial statements where their firm provides accounting services, unless the services are "routine or mechanical".

However, a 2025 review by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) indicated that up to 800 SMSF auditors may still be performing in-house audits, ASIC said.

Meanwhile, John Couroyannis and Dawid Maj had additional conditions imposed on their SMSF auditor registrations, including the need to conduct an independent review by an approved SMSF auditor, sitting and passing a competency exam, and providing a formal letter imposing further conditions to their professional body.

The named SMSF auditors have the right to seek review of ASIC's decisions through a request to ASIC or the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Currently, Morey and Yianni have requested that ASIC reconsider their disqualification decisions, and in each case, the disqualifications have been confirmed.

Both have since applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review of the decisions.

ASX updated its expense growth guidance for the full financial year to be between 20% and 23%. This includes operating expenses of between $25 million and $35 million related to the response to the ASIC inquiry.

ASX said the key driver for the increase in total expenses has been due to further upgrades in its resources to uplift risk management and to modernise and support its major technology platforms. Slower uptake of e-statements at a time of high trading volumes also contributed to the increase in expense guidance, it said.

In December, ASIC obtained a commitment from ASX to improve its operational risk management, to accumulate an additional $150 million of capital to maintain robust financial resources and ensure independence of its clearing and settlement facility licensees.

ASIC had initiated an inquiry into ASX in June 2025 around its questionable ability to "maintain stable, secure and resilient" market infrastructure, which were brought to the forefront due to disruptions in trading in late 2024.

ASX then said the glitch was a "technical issue" on its CHESS Batch Settlement, pushing trade settlements by two days.

ASX suffered another outage last month which impacted the publication of company announcements on its platform.

"Alongside the reset of the accelerate program and the measures to enhance the independence of the clearing and settlement facilities, we have been reviewing key areas of our strategic investment to support how we address the spirit of the inquiry's findings," ASX chief executive and managing director Helen Lofthouse said.

"This has underpinned our forecasting activity and contributed to the expense update we've provided today."

Since the report, ASX noted it has progressed development of an implementation plan for the strategic package of actions, revised investment requirements for key strategic priorities informed by the inquiry panel's interim report and updated its view of FY26 costs associated with trading volumes and the timing of various legal actions.

It reported a jump of 8.3% in profits after tax to $263.6 million in the first half of the financial year. Operating revenue rose 3.9% to $602.8 million in the same period.

ASX said it generated revenue growth across all four businesses with strong volumes for cash market trading, clearing and settlement and interest rate futures during the period.

"Our unaudited results show ASX has experienced a period of strong cash market trading activity and demand for interest rate futures, and we felt it was important to release these additional figures to allow a fuller picture to be considered when providing today's update to expense guidance," Lofthouse said.

Meanwhile, ASX's only competitor in the market, Cboe Australia, recently announced it will exit the Australian market to focus on other opportunities.

Lofthouse acknowledged ASX's role as an operator of critical market infrastructure which must perform to a "very high standard, always striving for excellence". She added ASIC's inquiry panel's report underscores an even greater urgency to the transformation required by it.

"We recognise it is a privilege to provide these critical services for our customers and the market, and we are committed to strengthening ASX for tomorrow," she said.

According to ASIC, BPS Financial advertised the product as a non-cash payment facility linked to the digital crypto token called Qoin.

In 2024, the court identified that BPS Financial had been providing financial advice for three years without an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL).

It was also found to have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by making several false and misleading representations about the Qoin Wallet product.

ASIC referenced that the ability of Qoin Tokens to be exchanged for fiat currency and other crypto-assets, the official approval and registration status of the Qoin Wallet and the growing number of Qoin Wallet holders (Qoin merchants) were among these statements.

ASIC found that it was not possible to exchange Qoin for fiat currency or crypto-assets on any independent exchange and did not have reasonable grounds for making that representation.

It also identified that the number of Qoin Merchants was in an overall and persistent state of decline from early October 2021, furthermore the product had not been officially approved or registered, nor had its standard, quality, value and grade been officially measured.

During the same period, BPS Financial issued over 96,000 Qoin Wallets with the revenues from Qoin Tokens sales totalling more than $42 million.

In 2025, the court found BPS Financial conducted unlicensed operations over an additional 10-month period, as it did not qualify for the authorised representative exemption under the Corporations Act when issuing Qoin Wallet.

BPS Financial has been handed a total of $14 million in penalties, including $2 million for unlicensed conduct and $12 million for misleading and deceptive conduct.

ASIC chair Joe Longo described the outcome as a test case for the crypto industry, and a warning to companies offering digital assets.

"The size of these penalties underscores the seriousness of BPS Financial's misconduct and is intended to send a strong message of deterrence to the digital asset industry," he said.

"Given the nature of these products, providers must have the appropriate licenses and authorisations, and investors must be able to make decisions based on clear and correct statements, especially as crypto products can be highly volatile, inherently risky and complex."

Justice Kylie Downes described the $2 million penalty for unlicensed conduct as a deterrent to BPS Financial and to the digital asset industry as a whole.

Beyond pecuniary penalties, the court ordered that BPS be permanently restrained from making any false or misleading representation about the product, as well as from carrying on a financial services business without an AFSL for 10 years.

The court ordered that BPS Financial publish an adverse publicity notice on the Qoin Wallet platform and take steps to request the publisher of 'qoin.com' website also publish this notice. Also, BPS Financial was ordered to pay most of the costs incurred by ASIC for the proceeding.

ASIC warned consumers need to be cautious about claims made in connection with crypto-assets and crypto-related products and be aware of the risks of investing in digital assets.

Former finance director Brendan Gunn pleaded guilty to dealing with more than $180,000 when it was "reasonable to suspect those funds were the proceeds from a crime", ASIC said.

ASIC said the funds were derived from suspected international scams that targeted Australian investors.

"At the time of offending, Gunn was a director of Mormarkets Pty Ltd, a company that accepted deposits from Australians for cryptocurrency and other supposed investment opportunities," ASIC said.

"While Mormarkets' bank accounts were in operation, Gunn was repeatedly notified of suspicious activity or reports of fraud, with the accounts progressively closed."

The financial regulator said that upon the closure of two Mormarkets bank accounts, between March and May 2020, Gunn received two bank cheques which included proceeds of investment amounts totalling $181,000.

It was alleged the bank cheques contained funds for four investments made by three victim investors, who deposited the money for conversion into cryptocurrency.

On behalf of Mormarkets, Gunn sought to open a series of bank accounts on an ongoing basis to receive and transfer deposits, despite bank accounts being repeatedly closed due to concerns about scams and Gunn being informed of these concerns.

"Gunn admitted that he then dealt with the bank cheques by sending them to an associate," ASIC said.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) and Gunn consented to the matter being dealt with for sentence in the local court.

For his part in handling the money, Gunn faces a maximum penalty in the Local Court of one year imprisonment, a fine of $12,600, or both.

The matter is next listed in the Downing Centre Local Court on 10 February 2026 for mention to obtain a sentencing date.

The matter is being prosecuted by the CDPP following an investigation and referral from ASIC.

Operational failures among super trustees and administrators, such as delays in processing claims, inadequate support and services for customers, poor IT infrastructure and cyber resilience, all escalate risk of fraud and scam, it said.

"Those operational failures by trustees or administrators can result in significant financial losses, compound distress for people facing difficult circumstances, and of course erode trust in the system as a whole," ASIC said, noting the need to prepare for operational risks as three million Australians become eligible to access their super in the next decade.

Meanwhile, AI is increasingly at the forefront of concern for ASIC as it sees consumers face risks from automated decisions, AI-driven interactions, and scams amplified by technology. It has found varying maturity in how businesses adopt AI and manage governance risks.

"While agentic AI can help people shop around for deals and avoid loyalty penalties, it can also compound risk given its capability to independently plan and act," it said.

ASIC also recognised regulatory gaps emerging in the financial sector, especially digital assets and fintech, due to rapid innovation by or for people unfamiliar with financial services. This increases potential for unlicensed advice to be provided, misleading conduct, and the exploitation of unclear regulatory boundaries, ASIC noted.

"Where a business is currently legitimately unregulated, it is ultimately for government to determine whether a new class of products or services should be brought within a licensing regime," it said.

"At the same time, some entities will actively seek to remain outside regulation, contributing to perceived regulatory uncertainty. As a result, ensuring clarity on licensing requirements and maintaining effective perimeter oversight will remain priorities for ASIC in 2026."

ASIC said its reporting has also shown a rise in calls to the Australian cyber security hotline, incident responses, and threat notifications.

"Digitisation, legacy systems, reliance on third parties, and evolving threat actor capability continue to elevate cyber risk in ASIC's view," it said.

ASIC urged directors and financial services license holders to maintain robust risk management frameworks, test their operational resilience and crisis responses, and address vulnerabilities with their third-party service providers.

It also highlighted increased retail client exposure to private credit markets raises risks of mis-selling, unsuitable product selection, and decision-making without adequate disclosure. This is being driven by lower investment thresholds and investment platforms enabling retail participation.

"Private markets are opaque, and Australia has limited regulatory reporting outside superannuation, meaning constrained supervision and potential heightened risks for investors," ASIC said.

The regulator said it will continue to crackdown on high-pressure sales tactics and inappropriate financial advice that can lead to consumers losing their retirement savings through investments in high-risk products.

"Aggressive marketing, lead-generation and "cookie-cutter" advice models have been driving switches of superannuation into complex, high-risk investments that are often unsuitable for average consumers, for example through certain managed investment schemes," ASIC said.

ASIC said it is closely working with government and consumer groups to address legal and regulatory gaps and deliver education campaigns to empower Australians to better identify risks to their retirement savings. It currently has 12 court cases underway related to the Shield and First Guardian matters.

Poor insurance claims handling, significant outage resulting from the implementation of CHESS replacement, poor quality financial reporting and increased risk appetite in the banking sector are also on its radar in 2026.

Milutin Petrovic was banned from providing financial services or performing any function within a financial services business for six years due to misconduct, including failing to uphold key advice obligations when recommending clients to invest in the Global Capital Property Fund (GCPF) while he was a UGC authorised representative.

ASIC was also concerned Petrovic did not act in his clients' best interests by providing inappropriate advice.

He was also accused of making statements that were likely misleading and of giving a "defective" Statement of Advice.

The banning took effect on 15 January 2025.

However, shortly after the announcement, Petrovic sought a review of the decision with the Administrative Review Tribunal to reduce his banning order to three years.

In the application, Petrovic argued the banning did not follow precedented scenarios and it was "overly harsh", citing there were adverse personal consequences of the ban which resulted in "serious repercussions, including loss of employment and inability to support dependents."

He also claimed ASIC misunderstood his role in the business.

"The decision deviates from similar cases, imposing an overly harsh and disproportionate penalty. For example, a comparable case involved a two-year ban limited to providing personal advice to retail clients," the application read.

"The decision inaccurately states that I recommended a specific investment. This is incorrect; my role was to facilitate investments that clients had independently selected prior to being referred to me by a referral partner.

"These errors demonstrate a lack of understanding of the facts and the context of my actions, providing substantial grounds for my appeal."

Based on Petrovic's appeal documents, the tribunal decided to vary the period of the banning order, agreeing to the three year request.

Petrovic will remain suspended until at least 2028.

In December, AFCA said it received more than 1800 complainants in relation to the collapse of Shield and First Guardian Master Funds. To resolve the large number of similar cases efficiently and fairly, it adopted the lead decision approach, allowing it to select a case that "best represents" the group.

In the FSGA lead decision, AFCA found the complainant received personal advice in October 2023 to roll over their existing superannuation into a newly created self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF). The adviser then recommended the SMSF invest in a high growth product.

AFCA said it wasn't clearly disclosed to the complainant that 60% of the product was invested in the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds.

"FSGA had a clear obligation to act in their best interests and provide appropriate, well supported financial advice. That did not happen here," AFCA lead ombudsman investments and advice Shail Singh said.

Singh noted that the adviser did not make adequate inquiries into the complainant's circumstances, failed to properly explain the high-risk nature of the investments, and found there was no demonstrated benefit in switching the super given the high fees.

"There was no reasonable basis for recommending the rollover," Singh said.

FSGA, now in liquidation, never responded to AFCA's requests for information. AFCA said FSGA should compensate the complainant minus any returns recovered through the liquidation or the fund windups.

"Now that AFCA has issued this lead decision for FSGA, alongside other lead decisions related to Shield and First Guardian, dedicated teams can progress similar complaints more quickly and consistently," Singh said.

The complaint for FSGA refers to inappropriate advice provided by 5 Point Financial Planning, formerly associated with FSGA.

Recently AFCA released its lead decision on MWL Financial Services, under which complainants were cold-called to have their super reviewed, while being referred to an adviser from MWL who suggested they set up a self-managed super fund.

In August 2024, Forrest secretly accessed the computer of the chair of Regal Partners without permission and photographed confidential takeover documents.

He then traded and procured others to trade in Platinum shares before leaking details of the takeover to the media, making over $300,000 profit for himself, ASIC said.

The Federal Court in Sydney sentenced Forrest to five years imprisonment for insider trading and two years for procuring others to trade, with one year of the procuring offence to be served cumulatively with the insider trading offence.

With a total sentence of six years and a non-parole period of three years, Forrest will be eligible for parole on 22 January 2029.

Justice Bromwich said the sentence also considered a further offence that Forrest provided unlicensed financial services as an investment funds manager to two entities over a nine-month period.

"This was serious and pernicious offending. Mr Forrest ... obtained the Pitch Deck deliberately and dishonestly ... what then followed in relation to the use of that information was plainly premeditated, even if it cannot be known how far in advance," Justice Bromwich said in handing down the sentence.

"Mr Forrest ... made a conscious choice to do something he knew was wrong, dishonest and illegal. It was a profound breach of trust to obtain that information, and an even more profound breach of trust to use it for the purpose of illegal share trading.

"The whole point of the insider trading prohibition is ... to maintain the integrity of the market by creating and maintaining a level information playing field."

ASIC said this marks the first outcome for its new specialist insider trading team which investigated and finalised the case within 16 months of the offending.

ASIC said its market surveillance team detected Forrest's suspicious trading activity in September 2024. ASIC's insider trading team launched an investigation, which led to a search warrant being executed on Forrest's home in November 2024 and charges being laid in August 2025.

Forrest pleaded guilty to the offences and agreed to forfeit the total realised profit from his insider trading of $309,571.84.

ASIC chair Joe Longo said the prosecution of insider trading was an enduring priority for the financial regulator.

"Mr Forrest's actions were a brazen breach of trust and exploitation, and his imprisonment... reflects the seriousness of his crime," Longo said.

"While some insider trading cases can take several years, Mr Forrest went from crime to jail time in just over a year, underscoring ASIC's determination to fast-track criminal cases of this type."

Longo called insider trading "a zero-sum game", highlighting that when someone profits from the illegal activity every Australian with a superannuation or investment account loses.

"ASIC will continue cracking down on insider trading and other misconduct that damages market integrity," Longo said.

"Australia is recognised globally for the integrity of its financial markets, and ASIC is determined to keep it that way."

Since 2009, 46 people have been criminally convicted of insider trading following ASIC investigations, including senior executives and company chairs. The maximum penalty for the offence of insider trading is imprisonment for 15 years.