Robert Hutchison of Lower Chittering, Western Australia, a former financial adviser and authorised representative of RI Advice Group (RI Advice), was permanently banned from providing financial services on 11 June 2017.
On 7 September 2017, the AAT granted a stay of ASIC’s decision until the tribunal made its final decision.
The AAT delivered its final decision on 18 September 2018 following Mr Hutchison’s application for review. The AAT found that Mr Hutchison did not engage in dishonest conduct or misleading or deceptive conduct for the purposes of sections 1041G and 1041H of the Corporations Act.
ASIC said it is considering the AAT decision.
This is abysmal! God i work in this industry but who in their right mind would not walk away now when ASIC can do this sort of thing? And who would walk into this profession knowing just how unjust and punitive ASIC can be? The punishments are just (and perhaps never have) fit the crime in Planner land. We know what happens if you are a CEO and make a mistake,,,you say “its probably time I moved on” and resign with full benefits
Thank you all so much for your support. The permanent lifetime ban handed down to Rob could have destroyed us. Our business has suffered huge losses, the stress has wreaked havock on our health and our marriage, I need to thank the people who had faith in us all the way thru this financially crippling ordeal, without your support we wouldn’t have made it.
Just shows how ASIC is out of touch and out of control that they can just destroy peoples lives without consequences. People need to stand up to these bureaucratic thugs
ASIC’s version of early English justice where the accused was innocent if he drowned and guilty if he floated. Execute, ie ban, the adviser today. And have the trial a year later.
Will ASIC pay damages?
Will ASIC apologise?
Will ASIC orherwise remediate?
they will not do any of the above. we will have to force their hand. class action against ASIC, peter kell and kelly o’dwyer NOW!
Advisers need to attack! ATTACK!
When? How?
What a surprise. ASIC teamed up with a bank owned AFSL to give an adviser a hard time.
Let me guess. It happened as he left, and RI deliberately gave him a hard time as payback for leaving.
That’s what the banks pay ASIC for.
Mr Mulllaly, ASIC’s tough enforcement guy, looks as silly and Ineffectual as he did at the Royal Commission when explaining how he let the bank tellers rip billions off their customers with dodgy advice on super products they knew were underperforming.
I Don’t understand any of it, but I will say congratulations to Mr Hutchison & LFS, although winning the case does not take away the injury inflicted upon Mr Hutchison
mr hutchinson needs to inflict damages on ASIC by first suing for lost wages, interest, psychological harm.
after that, 20,000 advisers need to lodge a class action against them for $1billion in compensation, after ASIC has to pay a $1bn compensation they will get their house in order or the government will do it for them
ASIC is a joke. We need an alternative with common sense to oversight our Industry !
with numpties like the FPA and AFA at the helm representing us, we’ve got buckleys
ASIC and the ATO need it’s own Royal Commission. They are thugs with a license to kill. Shoot first, ask questions later.
Guilty and jailed till you can show sufficient proof of innocence. ASIC must have a quota for staff to fill like a sales chart showing everyone’s kpi’s.
The news. Yesterday the Treasurer de-listed ASIC employees as public servants. Not sure if that is good or bad
Performance related bonuses paid to taxpayer funded ASIC staff.
Now removed from the Public Service by Frydenberg to get rid of the problem.
Again..what WERE the KPI’s that had to be achieved by ASIC staff in order to qualify for a performance related bonus ???
What constitutes ” performance ” as a staff member of a Govt funded regulator ?
Did these bonuses create a conflict of interest in the process of assessments?
These are all very serious questions that Josh Frydenberg must answer and Greg Medcraft and James Shipton must clarify in detail.
The internal workings of ASIC must be accountable to the taxpayer.
Remember the remuneration package provide to Ahmed Fahour at Australia Post ?
A lot of this was probably enacted by Frydenberg when he was Assistant Treasurer, and threatened legislative punishment if the industry didn’t agree to cherry picked, data manipulated, ideologically driven Report 413 and initiating the cartel enabling LIF.
Burying the bodies, and hiding the evidence. We are well on our way to bureaucratic totalitarianism. I wonder what Peter Kell authorised and did, so that he had to abruptly resign?
So ASIC really do employ the corporate reject lawyers…. WTF were they doing! Destroying another Adviser. Add that to the 410 Dover Advisers too.
This is disgusting. Bloody hell – can’t ASIC get ANYTHING right?!! Heads should be rolling for this. bloody glorified govt clerks – that’s all they are proving themselves to be. Peter Kell?!! You still there Peter?! Yes, as mentioned by someone already – this adviser should sue ASIC for a number of things including loss of income and stress. These are little Hitlers and Napoleons gone mad with power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say, and here it is, right here! Clients are able to sue advisers if the adviser does something stupid or criminal – what about now when ASIC has done something stupid – sue the buggers! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Hold ASIC to its own standards.There’s a novel thought. I don’t want to be in this space any more – currently looking for my exit plan, I mean, who wouldn’t be with this idiocy happening in the industry every day.
Maybe the dude handling the file went on extended long service leave and it sat in his in tray. Had that happen once to a business licensing application. Who cares.
Robert Hutchison should seek substantial compensation for the destruction of his business, the humiliation he and his family have had to endure amongst his peers, friends, clients and associates. The mental anguish he must have endured is unfathomable. These are the types poor decisions that should be clearly addressed and recorded as test cases against future kangaroo court determinations
his compensation claim should be enormous at least $30 million, and LF lawyers need to start a class action which thousands of advisers will join, the compensation claim should be for at least $10bn
once they pay out $10bn, these lazy blood sucking turds and vermins called bureaucrats will learn their lesson
if you are reading this lazy turds, you are useless and good for nothing
Handed to ASIC and they could not get it right -once a upon a time ASIC did proper investigations – now a fairy tale with no happy ending
READ THE WHAT THE ATT CONCLUDED:
CONCLUSION
I find that:
(a) the Applicant’s conduct did not contravene a financial services law for the purposes of s 920A(1)(e) of the Act;
(b) there is no reason for ASIC to believe that the Applicant is likely to contravene a financial services law for the purposes of s 920A(1)(f) of the Act; and
(c) there is no reason for ASIC to believe that the Applicant is not of good fame or character for the purposes of s 920A(1)(d) of the Act.
ASIC’s case relied on establishing the contravention of a financial services law, specifically under ss 1041G and/or 1041H of the Act, and that the Applicant was not of good fame or character. In making the reviewable decision, the delegate did not rely on any other subsections of s 920A(1) of the Act, such as subsection (da) that there is reason to believe that the Applicant is not adequately trained or is not competent to provide financial services and that argument was not raised by ASIC. The evidence did not seek to address that issue. Given my findings that the claims based on subsections 920A(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the Act have not been made out and that there is no reason to believe that the Applicant is not of good fame or character, I have no alternative but to set aside the Banning Order and, because no other ground for a banning order under any of the other subsections of s 920A(1) of the Act is established, I am unable to impose any banning order including one for a specified period.
Accordingly, I set aside the reviewable decision. The effect of setting aside the reviewable decision is that no banning order has been made and it is therefore not necessary to substitute another decision for the purposes of s 43(1)(c) of the AAT Act (see Tweed and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2018] AATA 514 at [189]).
My office represented Mr Hutchison.
There is a media release coming which will explain all in simple terms.
James Xenidis – LFS Lawyers
James, your firm needs to do a no win no fee deal with financial advisers. there is billions we have lost as a result of asic’s incompetence
a class action against asic would be the first step. please commence and put an ad in the afr, thousands will join the class action, there is millions for your firm, you will easily win when people will see what they have done to hundreds of small advisers they will weep for us and our familiies and the hell and torture we have been put through
How has this ban been overturned..? In previous articles about this guy, he was double charging his clients. He banked cheques personally and then charged via super/investment platforms to ensure his licensee got a cut. That sounds pretty bloody deceptive to me… and were his advice documents to his clients clearly outlining that this is how he is being remunerated? Unlikely.
Well if this is the case how come the gurus at ASIC could not make it stick? They have a great track record going back to the 80’s in letting some of the biggest corporate crooks slip through the net due to their incompetence.
AAT must be overloaded with cases brought frivolously by a number of regulatory bodies like ASIC and the ATO, often without sufficient evidence, just because they can. If you know you’ve not done wrong you have to fight these b*******s As we all know they’re brutal in their treatment and think they are righteous in their actions when in fact they are not always. If they were held accountable for the damage they cause when they’re wrong perhaps they would be more circumspect.
This may just be the start of the revolution.
friends colleagues, we must unit and start a class action against, asic, o’dwyer and the government james please begin asap thousands will join it
And how much pain and suffering has the adviser gone through in that time – not forgetting the income he’s also been unable to earn.
Just another ASIC dogs breakfast!!!
His a witch, his a witch..burn him at the stake!
Guilty until proven innocent…they have to go…how much has this cost the adviser?
Hi Gav, wait for our media release. We have been authorized by our client to discuss this matter
Rgds, James – LFS Lawyers.
We wait for the ifa exclusive … 🙂
I agree… so frustrating.
Peter Kell personally liable for damages, like we would be if a client was disadvantaged? I would be suing for loss of earnings, interest, potential defamation of character etc
I don”t understand . It took a year to come up with a decision that seems a simple case ???
why would they be in a hurry? They are public servants and a file is just a file. WHen a bonus is in play, they might act more quickly.
yup another set of lazy turds leeches sucking on the blood of hard working advisers like you and me