The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has banned former Lighthouse Partners financial adviser and director Timothy Archibald from providing financial services for 10 years.
According to the regulator, Lighthouse Partners engaged in fees for no service (FFNS) conduct in relation to 14 clients between January 2022 and October 2023.
During this period, Archibald was the CEO and a director, shareholder and financial adviser of Lighthouse Partners.
“He became aware of the FFNS conduct and failed to report it immediately to the licensee, Crown Wealth Group (although he ultimately did so). He also failed to immediately and adequately investigate the FFNS conduct and to implement adequate systems to prevent it from reoccurring,” ASIC said.
“ASIC also found that it had reason to believe that Mr Archibald is not a fit and proper person to participate in the financial services industry, including because as one of Lighthouse Partners’ shareholders, Mr Archibald enriched himself at the expense of affected clients by failing to refund an estimated $81,652 in fees plus interest.”
The regulator added that Archibald had “ignored warnings” that an offer of a review for ongoing service clients was insufficient and “issued fee disclosure statements to clients which acknowledged FFNS conduct had occurred”.
Archibald is now restrained from providing any financial services, performing any function involved in the carrying on of a financial services business (including as an officer, manager, employee or contractor), and controlling an entity that carries on a financial services business.
While the banning order took effect from 30 June 2025, Archibald applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) for a review of ASIC’s decision, alongside an application for orders staying the implementation of the banning order and prohibiting ASIC from publicising the banning decision.
Archibald withdrew his application for those orders on 1 October 2025, ASIC said.
In July, ASIC announced it had banned director, shareholder and financial adviser of Lighthouse Partners Kiriley Roper (also known as Kiriley Suckling) from providing financial services for 10 years.
The regulator also has banned Andrew Moore, who was previously a director, responsible manager and head of compliance at Crown Wealth Group, for three years.
Lighthouse Partners was a corporate authorised representative of Australian Financial Services licensee Crown Wealth Group.
On 13 March 2024, ASIC cancelled Crown Wealth Group’s Australian Financial Services Licence after it was placed into voluntary administration.
Maybe he should have just been a Shield Director may have been easier.
Let’s remember ASIC evidence of Fee for No Service is having a ROA or SOA on file. He may have provided plenty of “services”…just not what ASIC defines as a service, eg a visit to the hospital to complete a carer allowance application, the list is quite long as to non product services provide.
If only his software program automatically spat out a ROA that stated I recommend you sell BHP and buy RIO because I need to make some type of product recommendation.
The lawyer responsible for westpacs fee for no service to dead people , no penalty employed by asic. 80k for a private adviser self reported. 10 year ban. You wonder why there are no new entrants and adviser numbers are decimated? Perverse
There needs to be a royal commission into ASIC. They them selves are not fit for purpose, their remit is far too wide with little to no oversight or accountability in their own failings which there have been many recently.
Yet advisers involved in UGC, receive bans of 4-6 years…
Thats OK, you can be engage in market rigging on 14 occasions, fail to comply with conflicts on interest policy, causing it to breach its obligations as an Australian financial services (AFS) licensee, breach of director duties, and lending money to a known finfluencer who has been convicted of unlicensed advice and pump and dump schemes, to trade the company you are a director of. That’s OK because its only a 5yr ban. For anyone interested, EverBlu Capital, Adam Blumenthal. Ten of millions of investors money gone now.
Aware Suoer had over $100 million in fees for no service. Not one adviser or manager banned. This is 80k self reported coming off the pandemic. Why are ASIC bullying advisers and giving everyone else a pass while stealing millions?? Perverted bias regulator
Also self reported. 10 year ban? Crooks at asic. Let dixon shield guardian steal over a billion. Miss a review and self report, get banned for a decade. Disgusting
No explanation has been provided by ASIC about how this “lack of service” was determined. Nor has there been any discussion about this adviser’s compulsory ongoing operating costs. Little wonder retail adviser numbers continue to fall on a per capita basis.
None of issues you are raising allows planner to charge a fee and not provide service.
Like you, my anonymous brother, I can’t afford to raise my head above the parapet, for fear of being descended upon.
It would have been the ridiculous “failure to produce an advice document.” Even if the person had received reports, personal contacts, and been cared for and about.
The world won’t be happy until there are no financial advisers in Australia.
ohh well I guess they are paying for advice aren’t they? How hard is it to email a Hold recommendation ROA?
Indeed. Alarming that the ‘offer of a review’ is not sufficient. I know of numerous advisers who struggle to get clients to meet for an annual review as they are happy with non-meeting services through the year, yet this article implies that doesn’t count as having provided service!
Also 80k for 14 clients = 10 year ban. Versus 100 million and hundreds of thousands of members at aware super and 100s of more million $s at Westpac = no bans, and re-employed management now working in senior ASIC positions. Australias regulators and anti adviser bias is disgusting and rotten from the core.
It does state that at that stage an offer of a review wasn’t sufficient. There needed to be an actual advice document provided to be able to meet the expectations that asic placed on us, yes the ruels changed so we had to as well..
It dosent matter what the operating costs are, thats no excuse for FFNS, or anything for that mater, we all have operating costs. .
Asic changed the rules around charging fees, they expect an advice document even if its no change.
So he should have been aware of that.
What’s the reason for the imbalanced penalty. Its so easy to exhibit ethical egoism when it doesn’t affect you. This is disgusting from the regulators and from you endorsing the penalty.