Dylan Christopher Rands, who worked at Regal Funds Management, was issued a five-year ban from providing financial services on Wednesday.
Mr Rands was found to have engaged in manipulative trading in relation to ClearView Wealth shares, which he managed trading for as part of his role at Regal, between December 2018 and June 2019.
Mr Rands entered into 112 uncommercial transactions “which created, or were likely to create, an artificial price for the shares of ClearView Wealth”, and on 27 March 2018 and 31 May 2019, he created a false or misleading appearance of active trading in ClearView Wealth.
“Mr Rands’ pattern of trading involved purchasing ClearView Wealth shares which had the effect of increasing or restoring the ClearView Wealth share price shortly following a price fall,” ASIC said in a statement.
“Such trading displayed an absence of commerciality, in circumstances where Mr Rands’ objective was to exit the ClearView Wealth position he managed at Regal, which he ultimately sold in June 2019.”
ASIC deemed that Mr Rands is not adequately trained, or is not competent, to provide financial services and perform functions as an officer of an entity that carries on a financial services business, and is likely to contravene a financial services law.
Mr Rands has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC’s decision.
Regal has a public offer fund so markets itself by its performance against benchmark and peers. He as doing what most dealers/brokers do with direct access. There wouldn’t be an ASX stock that doesn’t have doggy orders in the queue
What is Mr Rand’s and Regal Funds Management relationship with Clearview? It should be disclosed if Mr Rand’s actions, by artificially manipulating Clearview’s ‘share price’ in way benefited, either actually or misleadingly, Clearview, either their management, shareholders and/or employees. In other words, what was Mr Rand’s motive and who was likely to benefit from his actions? I would appreciate if someone close to this sordid behavior could clarify these questions.
ASIC rarely justify who has/had/could have been left worse off (or better off) by the “behaviour” of those they ban. Often their own personal opinion is sufficient justification to make such claims as one is not competent, experienced nor knowledgeable enough and to ban them. They leave it up to the individual as to whether or not they can then afford to appeal the verdict through the AAT or Court system – if not, bad luck. It’s never any skin off ASIC’s nose and at the end of the day they are a law unto themselves and can (and do) whatever they please – even ignoring evidence presented.