The corporate regulator announced Mr Thanh Quoc Tu – whom it describes as a “financial adviser” – is charged with 33 counts of fraud and 21 counts of fraudulent falsification of records, carrying a maximum penalty of up to 12 years in jail.
According to a statement released by ASIC, between September 2008 and September 2013, Mr Tu, while an employee of Patersons Securities Limited (Patersons) in Brisbane, allegedly misled 18 separate individual clients to invest a total of $9,179,073.
His alleged conduct included providing false documents such as certificates of investment, the statement said.
Mr Tu, of Melbourne, was released on conditional bail and the matter will be mentioned on a date to be advised in the Brisbane District Court, ASIC confirmed.
He was previously banned from providing financial services by ASIC in July.
Most large broking houses officially call their stockbrokers Financial Advisers. No idea why, but they do. Probably because they think there’s less stigma than the term stockbroker.
My best mate is a broker at a large Melb Collins St firm and his business card and email signature all say “Financial Adviser”.
Need to enshrine the term Financial Planner in law and only allow those who are qualified planners to use it and advertise and market this to the public so we are not caught up in broker scandals, because I know of another similar one that hasn’t hit the news yet at a big Melb firm, and when it does, they were also a ‘financial adviser’…
So where are all you ethical licenced Financial Advisers, and how do I find you?
When I call a Broking House, particularly those with substantial financial and market research backing, why am I directed to a Client Adviser who is not a licenced Financial Adviser? Which Broking Houses employ licenced Financial Advisers as Client Advisers? They’ll only do it if your profession exposes them for not doing so. Why aren’t you campaigning that it be compulsory that they at least advise me of the difference? Why be critical of ASIC? At least they’re trying to change the culture; to expose and expel the rogues?
Rather than sitting in dudgeon complaining that your profession is maligned, where is your profession’s campaign for workable regulations to expel the un-licenced rogues?
Maybe the penalty for Patersons was taking their name off the Subiaco Oval.
Right. So you had a bad experience and everyone is the same?
Just like I guess all tradies rip people off. Just like all GPs are crap when one misses a diagnosis. Blah Blah Blah.
FINANCIAL “ADVISOR” (SALES!), STOCKBROKER, who cares, good ones are as rare as hen’s teeth. Back in 2012 this man wanted me to give him my entire lifesaving/super to let him play with Derivatives !
Once again ASIC are deliberately publishing press releases with incorrect information to denegrate the Financial Planning profession. Mr Tu was a STOCK BROKER, not a financial adviser. It is time for heads to roll at ASIC. They are a disgrace.
Patrick hits the nail on the head – the Directors and Managers of Compliance of firms employing these crooks need to be held accountable and sanctions need to be applied to those who fail in their duty of care. Perhaps 1 “strike” is permissible, but 2 or 3 should be met with increasing sanctions (applicable to the individuals and the company) until at some point licences are removed.
ASIC and the media seem to refer to the term “Financial Adviser”, even when the perpetrator of a crime has never been licensed at all!
So, why don’t they simply to refer to these people as criminal, fraudster, thief etc if they have never been authorised or licensed to provide advice?
Because it doesn’t sell stories and doesn’t keep the momentum going that has continued over the last 10years.
I am sure an annual or bi-annual Opt-in and a FDS requirement could have solved the problem surely!!
I can see Sam Dastyari and Chris Bowen now holding a press conference saying that this is why FOFA needs to be retained in it’s current form…..yeah right!
Appears to be another BS labeling by ASIC. From reading the above it sounds like he is a stock broker, not a financial adviser.
Can we please start correcting ASIC on this stuff? This is why we get a bad name.
IFA – Can you not perpetuate this stuff by just repeating ASIC rubbish.
Reading other reports state that he was a “private client adviser” with Patersons Securities – this does not equate to a financial adviser!!
Ah yes but FOFA will solve this sort of thing!
Commission doesnt mean bad…here is crook on salary…its people who can be either bad or good and no amount of legislation will solve it. Perhaps Brave New World is required (Aldous Huxley book)
Dave, “Financial Advisers” when something turns to crap or there’s fraud involved or theft or pedophilia, murder.
Stockbroker, Accountant, lawyer etc etc when there’s good news to report!!!
He was an employee of Patersons, so when are the directors, managers and compliance officers of Patersons going to be banned and charged? Why is the AFSL of Patersons not immediately suspended until they prove their competence to prevent this in future.
A financial adviser or a stock broker???
Same when an accountant goes bad-labelled a financial adviser. Time to give real planners a break and get the facts correct.