Adviser ban stretched to 2028 in ASIC deterrence win

The Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) has prohibited Stephen Rogers from being registered as a financial adviser for another three years.

Melbourne-based Stephen Rogers, a representative of United Global Capital, had been prohibited from registering as an adviser with ASIC until after December 2025.

The Financial Services and Credit Panel (FSCP) had made a registration prohibition order against Rogers after determining he inappropriately used a scaled advice model that excluded consideration of the suitability of establishing a SMSF and the suitability of the SMSF investing into products related to Rogers' licensee, and a rate of return in the benefit comparison in his statement of advice.

The FSCP found Rogers "acted in a way that was misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive."

As a result, Rogers was prohibited from being registered with ASIC during the prohibition period and from providing personal advice to retail clients on relevant financial products during that period.

Rogers had sought review of that decision in the ART.

In the ART ASIC provided evidence of similar breaches in relation to additional UGC client files and sought orders imposing a longer registration prohibition period.

The registration prohibition took effect from 7 December 2023. On 3 May 2024, the ART had granted Rogers a stay of the registration prohibition, subject to a condition that he does not provide scoped advice for the duration of the stay.

The tribunal has now set aside the FSCP decision and imposed a three year registration prohibition period. On 24 April 2026, the ART ordered that the registration prohibition end on 27 November 2028, taking into account the earlier non-registration period between 7 December 2023 and 2 May 2024.

In ART, ASIC argued Rogers' evidence under cross-examination suggested that he likely understood the problems with the model but turned a blind eye to it.

"Alternatively, if he truly did not appreciate or notice the issues, it speaks volumes of his skill and competence as a financial adviser," ASIC said.

"In many ways, Rogers was careless or reckless in dealing with his clients. He did not read the prospectuses and PDSs of the products carefully, if at all. He relied blindly on information fed to him by paraplanning and the management team and he did not carefully read and review the documents he was providing to clients."

ASIC further added that the Rogers' stood to personally benefit from his involvement in the model, 'albeit fairly modestly'.

ASIC contended that Rogers' either knew, or ought to have known, that the model operated as a scheme designed to induce vulnerable individuals to invest their entire retirement savings in a way that primarily benefited UGC and its associated entities, while exposing those investors to significant risk.

"Despite the gravity of the concerns raised, Rogers demonstrated limited insight into the nature and consequences of his actions. Whilst stating that he'd do things differently now, he did not accept any level of personal responsibility for his actions, instead repeatedly seeking to blame his licensee and the fact that he was inexperienced," ASIC said.

ASIC argued that cancelling Rogers' registration and preventing his reregistration for four years would carry substantial deterrent value.