This revelation came during a joint Parliamentary Committee on Corporations and Financial Services when Senator Paul Scarr brought to attention the matter of Shield First Guardian victim Melinda Kee being called as a witness in Interprac’s lawsuit against Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).
ASIC deputy chair Sarah Court said InterPrac’s conduct in this regard has been “disappointing,” especially now that a victim was being dragged the case.
Court added that ASIC hopes this move from InterPrac will not affect the number of victims and investors impacted by the debacle to come forward and lodge complaints.
AFCA has also made aware to ASIC the non-payment of their determination against InterPrac, meaning ASIC can now take action against the embattled financial firm. If ASIC don’t take action and InterPrac fails to make the payment, they can be forced into liquidation.
This is only the latest development in the long running InterPrac saga, with the complaints authority sharing last week that it has paused the finalisation of complaints made against InterPrac.
While it will continue to accept complaints regarding InterPrac, as well as working on existing cases, AFCA said it won’t be issuing any formal decisions, meaning complainants will have to wait until the court proceedings conclude to find out if their case will be impacted and then to receive any due payment.
“Complaints will continue to progress through AFCA’s complaints process, including registration, allocation to a case worker, information gathering and initial assessment.
“Consumers who have not yet lodged a complaint can still do so and are encouraged to lodge as soon as possible. This ensures their complaint is registered with AFCA and can continue to progress through the investigation process while the court proceedings are underway.
“However, AFCA will not make formal decisions (determinations) while the court proceedings are underway. AFCA will continue to monitor this position and may review it if circumstances change.”
Other recent developments also include InterPrac’s parent company, Sequoia Financial Group, attempting to sell firm to Conquest Investment Partners for just $50,000, a deal that was scuttled by ASIC scrutiny.
“The Company advises that its subsidiary, Sequoia Wealth Group Pty Ltd, has today terminated the Share Sale Agreement with Conquest Investment Partners Pty Ltd,” Sequoia told the ASX.
“The termination follows the inability of the parties to satisfy all conditions and requirements necessary to achieve completion of the transaction within the required timeframe.
“In particular, developments subsequent to signing have resulted in circumstances where completion cannot occur on terms consistent with those originally contemplated by the parties.”
The impact on the 98% non-related Interprac advisers by the Platform operators has been ridiculous. Every time, countless honest advisers & their clients are unnecessarily impacted by the action of a few.
There’s sufficient evidence of Interprac failing their oversight obligations. The flood gates should open where customers start taking civil actions for compensation for mental and physical damages. Start holding the Board, MD and CEO personally liable as they failed their duties.
I have just lost brain cells by reading this.
The only thing Advisers could agree with from InterCrap.
AFCA, the Kangaroo court needs to be accountable for zero ability and or action to hold ALL other parties that caused these losses liable:
MIS
Platforms
Research providers
Auditors
Responsible Entities
Super Trustees
ASIC
With AFCA blaming InterCrap Advisers 100% for losses, they fail the law.
Proportionate liability legislation limits a defendant’s legal responsibility for property damage or financial loss to a percentage that directly reflects their degree of fault, ensuring they do not bear the full financial burden for a loss caused by multiple wrongdoers. (Australian Government)
https://www.ags.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-05/lb20151116-proportionateLiability.pdf
Correct in every respect. Planners who are vilifying IP advisers who have nothing to do with this are ignorant. Multiple parties greasing the wheel IP partially but not wholly responsible and 4 outve 300 plus planners only. It seems pearl clutching ethical egoist advisers complaining dont realise this can happen again easily.
Reasonable for InterPrac to follow every legal channel possible. They didnt steal any money or benefit from the fraud? Whats happening with the real crooks who stole all the money and bribed the research houses? Why should the afsl be on the hook? Why do netwealth and Macquarie get off scott free? Asic should be paying for what they did to the profession or pay back our levy after winning proceeds in court. They’re the biggest thieves of them all asic and afca.
Ah no , how could you think like that?
Interprac oversaw some of the worst advice I have ever seen in 35 years, using negative consent, facebook ads to lure people in , promising high returns from products that were in thier infancy, kick backs left right and centre, etc etc the list goes on.
Interprac got dealership fees from people being put into these products from the advisers that made money from it and also audited these businesses, they are ultimately responsible for their reps advice.
How much more of a straight line do you need
These comments are breathtaking, to say interprac can wipe the hands of any of this is just delusional
You must have skin in that game
My reading to date is that Interprac’s position is that they are not ‘wiping their hands of it’. I think they are suggesting others are at fault as well and this should be considered. Not a fan of Interprac at all, but they do have a point.
Ultimately, I, as an adviser will be receiving a large bill for this debacle. I don’t think it unreasonable that a few other invoices go out to others involved. If the other parties take no responsibility at all, then advisers are toast.
No skin what youre seeing is personal bias. The actual funds were lost by lying fund managers and 4 planners endorsing them. Research houses misrepresented the safety of investments and they were paid by the fund manager. The provided research were lies. You misunderstand and are endorsing scapegoating. Its simple, multiple parties benefited – theft occurred and arguably bribery. Why should an afsl bear the brunt? Ludicrous
So allowing cookie cutter SOAs without understanding customer’s risk profiles and pushing more than 6,000 customers to the amount of over $650 million in 2 years didn’t rang any alarm bells with InterCrap compliance? Crole was only seeing profits and turned a blind eye to industrial fraud and corrupt conduct happening. Their moral compass tells everyone what type of business they were running.
Proportional liability should start with the fraudulent directors who ran and stole the funds in the MIS lying research houses and platforms that benefited too. Not just IP