The corporate regulator announced on Tuesday (14 December) it has banned Sydney-based financial advisers Gerald Cummings and Craig Allen for a period of five years, after the pair were found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct.
Moreover, ASIC also stripped the business headed by the pair, Premier Wealth Management, of its Australian Financial Services (AFS) licence for failing to do “all things necessary” to ensure financial services covered by the licence were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly.
Premier Wealth Management is also being held accountable for failing to ensure its representatives were adequately trained and competent.
Namely, ASIC found Mr Cummings as the director and authorised representative of Premier Wealth Management, failed to give statements of advice when there had been significant changes in clients’ circumstances and the basis for the advice. He also allegedly engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to review checklists on client files and failed to implement a system to refund clients who had been overcharged fees.
Mr Allen, current director and responsible manager of Premier Wealth Management, is believed to have been involved in Mr Cummings’ non-compliance with the requirement to provide statements of advice.
According to ASIC, Mr Allen had also audited his own files, engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to checklists on client files and had also failed to implement a system to refund any client overpayments.
Moreover, as noted by the corporate regulator, he failed to demonstrate that he has the skills, knowledge and expertise to perform his duties as a responsible manager and financial adviser to the standard required.
“ASIC found that both Mr Cummings and Mr Allen demonstrated prolonged, wide ranging and ongoing incompetence and lacked compliance mentality,” the corporate regulator said.
“ASIC found that they are likely to contravene financial service laws in the future.”
As such, both men have been banned from providing any financial services, performing any function involved in the carrying on of a financial services business, and controlling an entity that carries on a financial services business for a period of five years.
Are there any fines involved or recompense for the clients who were overcharged?
The joys for ASIC of the 1000’s of self licensed businesses out there.
To me, this is ASIC’s fault. They make it so easy to get a licence with no real due diligence on the firm’s directors, responsible managers or advisers, processes, policies, compliance mindset etc. The action is after after the fact where in many cases retail clients have lost money. If they introduced a higher bar for entry such as higher minimum capital adequacy requirements, they might say no to more AFSL applications.
Merry Christmas
Best regards,
ASIC
Financial advice does not need clowns like this.
…but did they pass the FASEA exam and complete the Ethics module?
Because if they did, there must be some mistake.
Well said Farce!
Curious as to whether these two had met the minimum education standards and passed FASEA?
Hence we have FASEA, royal commission and the need for more than a diploma that a year 8 student could obtain
This is so typical of advisers leaving larger AFSL holders. looking to get their own license so they can avoid having to answer to any oversight