Debt Wipeout business operator David Gregory Murphy has been charged with engaging in dishonest conduct while carrying on a financial services business and making false or misleading statements.
According to a statement released by ASIC on Wednesday, Mr Murphy is alleged to have represented to consumers that he could discharge existing debts in return for an upfront ‘swap’ payment of a percentage of the outstanding debt through advertisements for Debt Wipeout on billboards, websites and in person.
ASIC said that consumers then allegedly paid the ‘swap’ payment to Mr Murphy, but he could not, and did not, discharge their debts.
Furthermore, it is alleged that Mr Murphy published statements in Shopa Docket advertisements between August 2019 and August 2020 that suggested Debt Wipeout could wipe out debts for only 15 per cent or 25 per cent of the outstanding balance, even though he knew, or ought to have known, that such a statement was false or misleading.
“ASIC urges those who may have engaged Mr Murphy’s services believing he would discharge their debts to seek independent legal advice,” the corporate regulator said.
Mr Murphy appeared at Downing Centre Local Court in NSW on 26 April and the matter is next listed for mention on 3 May.
Meanwhile, the maximum penalty for an individual person found guilty of making false and misleading statements is up to 15 years imprisonment, a fine of $999,000 or three times the total value of the benefit received (whichever is higher), or both.
A year ago, the corporate regulator also obtained additional orders by consent in the Federal Court restraining certain other parties from carrying on, promoting or providing referrals to any business associated with Mr Murphy or another party, where consumers pay for their debts to be discharged with a non-cash payment.
What happen to the Police charging this guy with ‘Fraud’? When did they stop arresting criminals?
So he was licensed by ASIC to carry on this type of business ??…or not ??
I hope that the money that I pay to fund ASIC, as a licenced Financial Planner, is not being used to chase non-licensed operators. If it is, I will expect that any fines will be offsetting my fees to fund ASIC. I don’t expect unlicensed operators should be policed by licenced operators, which include Real estate spruikers, car salesmen and unlicensed Financial commentators.
I hope that the money I pay in taxes does get used to chase non licensed operators. In a civilised society the government should be using the money it raises by taxing consumers to protect those consumers from harm.
It is nonsensical to suggest that licensed advisers are the primary beneficiaries of measures taken to protect consumers from unlicensed advice. The primary beneficiaries are consumers.
So the big players who do the same thing get to remediate and keep their licenses but small fish get charged.
Incorrect. Banks were licenced yet breached legislation.
This guy had no licence.