Mr Nesseim’s misconduct was uncovered by ASIC’s Wealth Management Project probe into the largest financial advice organisations, including Westpac’s licensees.
In the course of that investigation, ASIC found that Mr Nesseim deceptively modified documents provided in evidence to ASIC and also made false statements under oath. The documents in question were wholesale client certificates that the adviser backdated in what ASIC says was an effort to avoid further inquiries from the regulator.
He is the 46th institutionally-aligned adviser banned by ASIC as part of the Wealth Management Project.
The former adviser left Westpac in 2013 after seven years at the bank and became an authorised representative of non-bank dealer Fortnum until 2016 and then Libertas from 2016 to March of this year.
“Providing false evidence to ASIC in an attempt to avoid scrutiny by the regulator is reprehensible and does not uphold the attributes of honesty and integrity required of a financial adviser,” said ASIC’s Louise Macaulay in a statement.
Although I understand your articles represent news that ASIC are starting to take a proactive stance on wrongdoing in the industry and rightly so they seem to stop short when it comes to the licensees
So what happened to the investigation into dealer groups of last resort that was promised by ASIC
Why is there not follow up investigations for fees for no service on all the RC companies and a wider and broader investigation
Why have we not got the right ethical culture at the top of many of these groups as ASIC have stated they want to see
Sorry your articles although semi factual miss the mark and a focus should be about encouraging ASIC to get if their backside grow a pair of cajoles and get stuck in to some of these largest independent groups that are openly mocking ASICs role as a regulator
A suggestion IFA would be given ASICs whistle blower line is harder than a rubic cube to complete GET your own and watch how many the law abiding people Like myself who are sick of these rogue businesses ruining our industry make complaints
Then you can submit all the complaints to ASIC and they might just act
Good advice is not rocket sclence, Integrity and life experience and the ability to do fairly simple clerical work is the go. Would my degree in Land Surveying and 15 years of working in the real world of agricultural development, mineral exploration, engineering, town planning and development, local government, state politics etc etc be considered “relevant” , upon which to tack a Dip FP and a keen interest in getting things right ? Or is someone who goes to a suburban school, then a degree in commerce etc better prepared for wise financial advice ? Its a tough one eh ? Main point is yoy cannot “rely” on any education, ticket, membership or license as a cure all. Just as often the tickets and badges serve as sheeps clothing for the wolves. There are plenty of good advisers who have learned on the job and their main quality is integrity. For an AFS LICENSE .. however, the bar cannot be high enough.
I disagree, to advise on complex scenarios it does require a high level of technical understanding and a lot of advisers dont currently have that. Not hard to recommend the old super-rollver and flog some risk though but I wouldnt considering that good advice in most cases.
Get rid of the garbage advisers who are dragging the profession through the mire.
[quote=Anonymous]Very good point. If the offences occured at Fortnum or Libertas then the fact he was previously institutionally aligned should be a minor point. [/quote]
It doesn’t say in the ASIC media release either.
[b]Was there detrimental advice or impact to a client or was this ‘fraud’ him fixing incomplete compliance documentation?[/b] We need some perspective and whether the punishment suits the ‘crime’; destroying someone’s career and livelihood is draconian if it were simply paperwork ineptitude.
Not condoning lying under oath, (I mean we’re not Unions who are seemingly impervious to perjury prosecution), but the fear of the exorbitant penalties (and feeling of persecution by ASIC) for simply not having the right compliance documentation is insane compared to any other profession who would at most get a slap on the wrist and be allowed to continue on and learn from the experience.
Falsifying documents is of itself a serious matter as it involves deliberate dishonesty – a person who engages in conduct of this type is not fit to provide professional advice – for example a doctor who creates fictitious file notes about a patient’s treatment should not be allowed to practice.
It is one thing to create fictitious documents – it is a whole other thing to give false evidence under oath about what has been done (because this involves a second layer of dishonesty) – that is, this person has created fictitious documents and lied under oath about them – such a person should clearly not be allowed to provide professional advice.
You can’t be serious? A slap on the wrist for fraud?
this is why it is imperative that regulation of financial advisers be handed to a body like fasea and not asic
Some of these comments miss the obvious point – altering documents that are produced pursuant to a Notice is a criminal offence as is giving false oral evidence at an ASIC examination – ASIC is now talking a good game about how it is going to use its investigatory powers to their full extent – this matter is a good example of the way that laws are not actually enforced – if this person did what ASIC says that he did – he should have been charged with a number of criminal offences under the ASIC Act.
Whilst the conduct was uncovered during a Wealth Management Probe, the article does not confirm which dealer group he was authroised with when he engaged in false and misleading conduct. Headlines = click bait.
Very good point. If the offences occured at Fortnum or Libertas then the fact he was previously institutionally aligned should be a minor point.
More pieces of paper from universities or the-like, and more pieces of paper in the form of disclosures and disclaimers are not going to change the industry, which for the most-part is full of people trying to do the best for their clients, and in the way that is of the lowest impact to the client (who often wants things done simply and quickly without fuss or complicated documents to go through. The industry here has gone backwards with regulations, not forwards over the last decade or two. Part of our job should be making things easy and as low-cost as possible for the clients, which will only come with simplification. If my lawyer and surgeon can both perform highly technical duties for me with one piece of paper that discloses the pros and cons as well as the remuneration, then why can’t we open a super account for someone using the same sized document. And if anyone in the industry has actually used more than 25% of what they learned in Secondary School, University or other formal studies for financial planning I’d be very surprised as it’s merely theory. Theory does not make a good Adviser.
I am sick of hearing the we don’t need to improve ourselves (ie no ongoing education (not rubbish CPD) is required to improve our industry and our standing as advisers).. we should always strive to improve, elite athletes don’t make it to the AFL and then say I don’t need to train or improve anymore because I am already elite, Any topic is an excuse to slam increasing standards and I am fed up!
Perhaps, but the AFL players dont get to that level and then have to prove they can kick a footy and handball and understand the rules of the game… Any further work they do builds on existing skill sets. For me, having to do a degree would be 80-90% stuff I already know from 20 years experience and a passion for the industry meaning on top of that 20 years experience I have read just about every book imaginable on investing, human psychology/behavior, sales, relationships, economics, etc. Please explain to me how going back and doing a Masters will help me or my clients? (I have literally looked into this and the course content and I will not learn anything. I’d rather (and learn more) from a week long forum of peers debating ideas and topics.
as someone who is addicted to ongoing learning, i assure you that if you completed a masters degree you would find many gaps in your knowledge you didn’t know you had
Well actually, if AFL players arent up to the standard then they get cut. If they dont keep improving they get cut. They dont just get everything grandfathered because they are afraid of change… Evolve or get out.
we can get to that stage – of a surgeon and lawyer – once we have as a minimum entry a post graduate degree in financial planning, a comprehensive exam that is reasonably difficult to pass, an articleship preferably for a minimum of three to four years, so in total 6 to 7 years of education and experience before you can be called a financial adviser at that stage we should be able to make recommendations like surgeons and lawyers do on a single piece of paper (which many of us can do very well)
until then we have to wear our nappies and be supervised
please do not resist the educational reforms, it will ultimately lead to a better industry and we will become a profession and be able to self regulate
How can AMP then be allowed to retain their AFSL when they lied to ASIC an admitted 12 times? Surely a double standard.
not 12, …….. drum roll please ….. [b]20 times [/b][u][/u]
How can AMP Financial Planning still be a member of the FPA? How can other members of the FPA be happy to put up with it? I’m just dumbfounded more members are not saying anything.
One again, no information as to why banning order. Time their KPI’s were public as to how their fine and banning targets are aligned to pay rises and promotions…..
100% agree, KPI’s ON THE TABLE
Another permanent ban with very little information! Are ASIC still trying to make themselves look good. What documents were modified, what evidence proves that this advisor did it…or is it that he could not afford a legal representative at the ASIC meeting and did not understand his rights?
On the other hand, what idiot makes false statements while under oath? And what evidence is there to suggest that ASIC hasn’t thoroughly investigated this and found that there were documents modified? I’m reasonably sure that if we’ve reached the point of this guy being banned by ASIC that there was actual poor behaviour that has occurred.
I am actually aware of an Advisor that this has happened to. ASIC will say what they want and do what they want with no consequences…..
Am I getting old? Aren’t we able to just turn up and provide the consumer with a reasonable outcome, without having to resort to this nonsense ??
so once again, it was not, apparently, a lack of education here… it was a lack of honesty and ethics. Something that I dont think is learned once one is long in the tooth… it is in the upbringing and formative years where this is instilled for most people. FASEA take note.& Minister O’Dwyer take note and act accordingly.
Not saying education solves everything, because it doesn’t, but he didn’t have a relevant degree. Looks to be another DFP/grandfathered CFP type operators as many of the recent crooks have been. Had an unrelated degree though.
Wrong. Do the maths, would not have been in the grandfathered CFP phase at all.
Being a member of the FPA is a sure sign he’s corrupt. The CFP sign is now a mark that you belong to an association where your fellow members take bribes(NAB) charge dead people fees(CBA) and don’t turn off advice fees and even lie to ASIC (AMP). These are the firms that drive the FPA and here you are talking about Grandfathered CFP’s. The FPA CEO ignores complaints in return for appearing on TV. Their CEO will sell his sole for new members. The fact that probably you like most FPA members, just renew their fees every year and have said nothing about any of this conduct or this relationship, means they are quite happy for it to continue on… and are no better than the criminal themselves.
Your reference to NAB speaks to the bank itself and NOT NAB Financial Planning (and thus is totally irrelevant to the FPA – who I also despise by the way). But please don’t speak mis-truths while you are ranting.
education doesn’t solve every problem.
because, there are doctors who abuse patients and their privileged position
there are lawyers who are criminals
there are accountants who steal millions from their clients smsf
but it will go a long way to improving our public perception and standing with the consuming public, regulators and other stakeholders
AND what it will do if you have a 7 year period to qualify is to limit the number of crooks who will enter the profession, there will be many who will still enter but they will be limited because they will have to wait 7 years to enter the profession
we have to make it hard and increase the barrier to entry, we need a bigger wall than Donald wants to build
AND we need to legally restrict the financial planner/ adviser to those suitably qualified by education, exam and experience