Jenan Oslem Thorne, also known as Cenan Thorne or Cenan Dikman and an accountant with Saber Superannuation, first entered into a court enforceable undertaking (CEU) with ASIC on 13 February 2019, following an investigation that found she failed to act in her clients’ best interests and that she prioritised her own interests.
The undertaking prevented Ms Thorne from providing financial services for a period of three years.
The regulator decided to review Ms Thorne’s advice when it discovered, during its investigation into Park Trent Properties Group, that she was receiving referrals in relation to establishing self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) from Park Trent.
ASIC reviewed advice provided by Ms Thorne when she was a representative of SMSF Advice, a wholly owned subsidiary of AMP, and concluded that she had advised some of her clients to establish SMSFs without taking their circumstances into account.
Furthermore, Ms Thorne had recommended that her accountancy practice, Saber Accountants, prepare the annual accounts and tax returns for the SMSF clients. This led ASIC to determine that Ms Thorne recommended the services of a related party to create extra revenue for herself.
The watchdog then commenced civil proceedings against Ms Thorne on 17 November last year, alleging that she took deliberate steps to avoid compliance with the CEU.
After the regulator filed the proceedings, Ms Thorne agreed to orders requiring compliance with the CEU.
The court also ordered that Ms Thorne correspond with relevant consumers to provide them with information regarding the CEU, including a copy of a relevant ASIC media release, and to notify the regulator of her compliance with the orders.
ASIC commissioner Danielle Press commented: “ASIC first took action in this matter because the law requires that financial advisers act in their clients’ best interests. Those providing financial services must not prioritise their own interests or simply implement client instructions.
“Individuals and organisations entering into court enforceable undertakings with ASIC have binding obligations that must be met to ensure compliance. ASIC will not hesitate to take action against those who don’t comply with their obligations.”
The court also ordered that Ms Thorne pay $16,529.78 for ASIC’s costs of the proceeding.
Wait a minute – why was she ordered to pay ASIC’s costs? Isn’t that what the Adviser Levy is supposed to be covering? Along with government funding? And the proceeds of fines ASIC receive? So is the regulator turning a profit out of this revenue/fining scam of theirs, or are they simply wasting money given to them like the majority of government enterprises?
I thought most accountants recommend SMSFs to create extra revenue for themselves?
They do. Thousands of accountants give inappropriate, conflicted, illegal financial advice every day. They get away with it because ASIC is totally focused on licensed advisers. This accountant got caught because she was foolish enough to get licensed.
Spot the difference. Words you will never read in an ASIC media release:
The regulator decided to review Industry Super Australia’s advice when it discovered, during its investigation into Industry Super Australia, that they were receiving referrals in relation to establishing membership into their superannuation funds from associated union representatives.
ASIC reviewed advice provided by Industry Super Australia when an employee of ME bank, an wholly owned subsidiary of ISA fund, Australian Super, was advised to join their fund and concluded that they had advised numerous clients to establish memberships without taking their circumstances into account.
Furthermore, ISA had recommended that their fund management arm, IFM, invest all the proceeds for these clients. This led ASIC to determine that ISA recommended the services of a related party to create extra revenue for themselves.
So true!! You’ll never read about ASIC doing the same to union super, but they will gleefully destroy a small single operator.