The proceedings are against former AMP adviser Mustafa Mohammed, Mahek Mustafa, Mubashir Mohammed, MyWealth Manager Financial Services Pty Ltd (trading as MyWealth Manager), MyWealth Protection Pty Ltd, 3M Financial Planning Pty Ltd (trading as MCube Planners) and Secure Investments Pty Ltd, ASIC said in a statement.
Mr Mohammed was an authorised representative of AMP from October 2013 to March 2017.
ASIC said it is seeking declarations from the Federal Court that the defendants have contravened the Corporations Act by operating an unregistered managed investment scheme called ‘MyWealth Manager’.
It is also alleging that the scheme should have been registered and that the defendants operated the scheme without holding an Australian Financial Services Licence.
On 21 November 2019, ASIC obtained interim orders in relation to the defendants, including orders:
- appointing Tim Norman and Rob Woods of Deloitte as receivers and managers of MyWealth Manager Financial Services Pty Ltd and 3M Financial Planning Pty Ltd;
- restraining the assets of the remaining defendants;
- restraining the defendants from carrying on a financial services business in this jurisdiction without an AFS licence;
- restraining the defendants from managing, directing, controlling or otherwise operating the unregistered scheme; and
- restraining the defendants receiving, soliciting, transferring or disposing of investor funds received in connection with the unregistered scheme.
ASIC also alleged that Mustafa Mohammed operated MyWealth Manager from February 2017 and targeted consumers from certain ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
Further, it alleged the scheme has raised approximately $7 million from more than 55 investors where investors were encouraged to roll over their externally managed superannuation into newly created self-managed superannuation funds and then invest the SMSF money, by way of a loan, in MyWealth Manager.
Finally, ASIC alleged that the defendants used investor funds for their own personal use, including substantial payments to friends and family members and the promotion of cryptocurrency.
The corporate regulator’s investigation is continuing, and the hearing has been adjourned to a date to be fixed after 5 December 2019.
nothing to do with AMP thank you
To be fair to AMP on this one it looks like the rot started after he left AMP.
Correct, I think a few posters went off a bit early without fully reading and/or comprehending the article.
I can say from experience that this all happened while this business was running with AMP. Book purchases, revenue writing and ongoing trails grant a cloak of invisibility.
I’m sure it does, but the ASIC investigation noted they started operating MyWealth Manager in Feb 2017 and they were out of AMPFP in March 2017, either told to go or went out of their own accord. In this case, I’m not sure why AMP is in the headline.
But that’s the great thing about the financial planning industry, the majority love kicking the opposition, especially while they are down. That’s what make this industry so unappealing to consumers. These comment are funny, fools going off half-cocked, sooking about their plight, as a reader/observer it’s classic. There is no better sabotague than self-sabotage.
Seriously mate, when do you reckon they met the clients that are the subject of these proceedings? After they left AMP?
Potentially. They may have met the clients prior but as per the report: ”ASIC also alleged that Mustafa Mohammed operated MyWealth Manager from February 2017”, gather AMP gave them their marching orders soon after (or they gave AMP notification). I notice many posters on this site have extremely poor reading and comprehension skills.
One of these chaps spent 3 months at Dover before heading to AMP. Under those conditions maybe he’d been given the boot. Perhaps ASIC could call AMP before a Royal Commission and ask them about their recruitment processes of that individual and close AMP down.
How does this crap operate for 3 years and the licensee knows nothing about it? Incredible. The advisers must of had a lot of other ‘good’ advice to escape this coming up in an audit. Where’s AMP’s liability in this? At least it was before we all became ethical from doing an exam.
AMP’s liability is nil. Re-read the article.
Further to this announcement – ASIC have also advised that AMP, the holder of the AFSL for which these dodgies operated under, will also have its licence cancelled and the executives that were the responsible managers would be banned from operating in the financial services industry for five years.
Dream on!!
Re-read the article, this has nothing to do with AMP!
Another minnow offered up at the ASIC sacrificial altar.
AMP will just pay a little fine and move on. Being too big to fail really helps these days.
AMP will pay no fine. Re-read the article and try to comprehend it better. I’ll give you a little help, look at the dates mentioned in the article.
These guys were always dodgy, not very intelligent and all like snake oil salesmen. Ran in the same circles as another criminal Intaj Khan, “brothers”. All belong in prison.
Never trust a person remotely linked to a cult. In this case by name at least.
finacial adviser has to have his day in court alone for this nothing to do with. AMP
Maybe it wouldn’t have even breached the variable income clause in FASEA’s Standard 3 if they had charged a dollar fee for service for the transition of the funds to the SMSF rather than charge an asset based fee ?
Would have breached a number of other Standards though.
Appreciate you are being facetious (FASEAtious?!) but we all need to be clear on an important issue in relation to conflicted remuneration and FASEA Standard 3…
– All remuneration types are potentially conflicted, including fee for service.
– FASEA Standard 3 does not differentiate between remuneration types.
Even if these gangsters did charge fee for service they still would have breached Standard 3 due to not avoiding a clear conflict. In fact the vast majority of SMSF advice breaches Standard 3. Most SMSFs are completely inappropriate and unnecessary, as there are public offer funds which can meet most clients’ needs far more easily and cheaply. Most SMSFs are recommended due to the adviser’s (or more commonly accountant’s) conflict of receiving more ongoing fees for administering and advising on the SMSF.
Where as the oversight by AMP of these Advisers over the 3+ years? Does Corporations Act 2001 s912A apply here?
No oversight by AMP because they were no longer at AMP. Re-read the article. A little assistance for you, look at the dates mentioned in the article.
And yet nothing but crickets when it comes to the main culprits from the Financial and Banking Royal Commission whose activities affected millions of Australians for BILLIONS of dollars! Crickets! Nothing! ZIP! Nada! NIX!!! Hello? Is anyone listening? ASIC???? APRA??? GOVERNMENT??? Seems like no-one is home when the going gets tough. Much easier picking the low hanging fruit, even if it is as rotten as the top of the tree but not as smartly dressed!
exactly, those Execs continue on their $1m+ salaries….
Now if only they had completed an ethics course and an exam they would have learned that this behaviour is unethical and this whole thing could have been avoided.