In September 2020, the regulator commenced civil proceedings against the subsidiary, for alleged conflicts, failing to act in its clients’ best interests and providing inappropriate advice.
ASIC claimed that Dixon Advisory representatives knew or ought to have known that there was a conflict between their clients’ interests and the interests of entities associated within the Evans Dixon Group.
ASIC reported they had failed to give priority to the clients’ interests and provided advice that was inappropriate for clients’ circumstances.
On Friday, ASIC confirmed that the agreement included a court-ordered mediation and the proposal that Dixon Advisory pay a $7.2 million penalty for breaches of the Corporations Act and $1 million to go towards ASIC’s investigation and legal costs.
The resolution is subject to approval from the court.
Dixon was a sham, yet no banning orders, no disqualifications, no suspension of AFSL… JOKE.
You reckon this is bad – check out ASIC findings ( ASIC media release 21-021MR in Feb) on Poynter Hargraves with offices in SA, NSW and QLD !!
What an absolute farce. Broke every rule that advisers and fund managers have to comply with in all aspects of their businesses.
And they walk away with a minute slap on their limp wrists.
ASIC – you have absolutely no credibility and legal fairness and and you should be dismantled and rebuilt with intelligent and realistic individuals – however difficult this may be !! Should say if the pathetic politicians have the courage to address this problem.
Thought it must have been April Fools with this announcement. So clients are left with underperforming investments that they can’t sell, Dixon’s keep taking their fees, and ASIC get a $7.2m windfall.
No fines or penalties for anyone of the executives involved. No financial assistance for any of the clients that were ripped off. No advisers banned for providing advice that was not in the clients best interest.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
This should reduce the ASIC levy shouldn’t it?
This is a joke. No ban. No loss of licence. Toothless tiger when it comes to the big boys. How can this lack of punishment be justified? A fine means nothing to them.
Lucky it was a big establishment business with funds to defend themselves. If this was a small fry they would have cancelled the AFSL.
Interesting that AwareSuper previously FirstState Super and StatePlus were using investors money, and were using Advisers to sell their products to fund members so that First State Super could purchase State Super…then those bonds were subsequently written off & devalued as a result of the whole fee for no service issue. It just depends on which account you take it from the Balance sheet it seems.
Here’s it’s quoted “ASIC claimed that Dixon Advisory representatives knew or ought to have known that there was a conflict between their clients’ interests and the interests of entities associated within the Evans Dixon group” I can’t see the difference between the two cases.
Wonder if this will result in further litigation with the law firm looking at class action?
I guess this is the only way of clients getting any money from it, because it is clear that ASIC is only interested in collecting a few small fines and not making sure taxpayers best interests are looked after.
Will this reduce advisers funding of ASIC costs?
What happened to “accountability”? Surely the founders/owners should be penalised personally, banned from the industry due to contravention of all those ethics us advisers have had to sit through sessions on over the past year! And YES, clients complained, despite being threatened with litigation.
That’s the beauty of the licensee regime. Individuals can just continue. Individual licensing would be much better – it would be the principals who would have the consequences.
This is a group that daily, without fail, advertised and promoted themselves through various media including radio. beware of perpetual self promotion .
Isn’t there alot of similarities around the advice process that Dixons had in comparison to union funds. In short in house advisers flogging in house product. So if Dixons is found to be giving advice that fails best interest how do the union funds get a pass? Everyone knows the bias ASIC has, when are they actually going to be forced to investigate their comrades?
Union funds don’t have ‘products’ in the way that dixon did
Dover had a poorly worded client agreement and got deregistered. No conflicts identified or charged. Depends who you’re friends with I guess.
that’s very true
Yes and that settlement goes straight to ‘consolidated revenue’ but the fees ASIC paid willl come out of the fees they charge advisers in these rapidly escalating ‘ASIC Fees’. Any fees should be netted opff with the balance only going to consolidated revenue. Advisers are not here to pay ASIC legal bills
Did any client lose money or complain?
Yes. Plenty. The fund is still frozen
And some of the unfrozen funds are down 91%.
Does the $6.2 million go towards ASIC running costs?
Good old Dixon – SMSF and US Property.
And that $8.2 Mill goes straight to Consolidated Revenue.
Whilst Real Advisers get stung for ever increasing ASIC Levies.
What a disgusting double taxation rort of Advisers from LNP / Frydenberg & ODwyer.
Levies Rort, you are spot on in your first 2 lines….however, do you think that Labour/Greens/Unions/ASIC/Industry Funds/Their ABC/every other socialist organisation have the consumers best interests at heart? You wouldn’t happen to be one of these by chance?