Mark Ronald Letten, former director of liquidated firm LGH Holdings and principal of Lettens, received a sentence of five years and eight months in the Melbourne County Court after previously pleading guilty to 27 charges, including 21 “unregistered managed investment schemes relating to property development”.
Mr Letten also admitted to carrying on a financial services business without an AFSL and dishonestly using his position as a company director.
“Between 1998 and 2010, more than 1,000 investors, the majority of whom were sourced through Mr Letten’s accountancy practice, placed more than $100 million in investment property schemes in Australia and New Zealand,” said a statement from ASIC.
“Mr Letten managed and promoted the projects through a number of companies, including LGH Holdings Ltd. Investors suffered losses of at least $67 million in the schemes.”
ASIC chairman Greg Medcraft said that Mr Letten had “acted in complete disregard for the law and with little concern for the interests of the investors” and that “jailing should send a strong message to company directors and scheme operators about the serious consequences of operating property investment schemes outside the legal requirements”.
I am one of the investors who lost our life savings. Three years jail time does not send a strong message or is near enough penalty. This equates to one day for each $61,187 he stole. A real joke.
What about the other accountants who gave financial advise and made huge money from commissions and got off scott free. No justice served here.
It’s a shame that the few bad apples on top always tarnish the reputation of the current crop! Without the means to deter or stop these bad apples, as clearly there will always be some, I fail to see why a system can’t be put in place to ensure this doesn’t continue to occur. I believe a simple verification system of inwards funds would remove the ability of these cowboys to invest the funds and thus protect the investor, along with all the decent planners, accountants and industry professionals that don’t deserve the grief these fools generate. Clearly if they can get away with it they will continue to try. I can envisage a simple yet effective verification system via the licensee, that would save a lot of people a lot of time and money. Why keep reacting after the fact. We need to outsmart the dills.
I am completely surprised that the word ‘Financial planner’ has not managed to morph its way out of this story. Spot on Patrick and ‘C’. This is the sort of story that has made its way to the feet of our industry time and time again. A Financial Planner only has to be drinking coffee in the same or neighboring suburb to be blamed for this type of fiasco. Will we see Accountants bagged for 10 years for this sort of stuff? No! and nor should they as a group be blamed, just as we shouldn’t be lambasted for the actions of a very very few bad apples.
If you take investment advice from an unlicensed entity, there is no protection. That can mean no insurance, no compensation. I guess we won’t see any Slater & Gordon action here either.
Of course they wont, it will be all the fault of the FINANCIAL Planning Industry!Why does the Regulators just not get it? the public has far more protection with a Financial Planner than any Dodgy Accountant who is not even qualified in giving financial advise.
Let’s see if the general media and politicians will now jump onto the “Rogue Accountants” bandwagon and unfairly hammer all Accountants following this conviction!
Will Chris Bowen & Bill Shorten go public in relation to “dodgy” Accountants?
What is of significantly greater concern is that how does ASIC allow this practice to continue for a period of 12 years, with 1000 investors and $100 million in property investment schemes by an Accountant running a financial services business WITHOUT an AFSL??????
Is it because the schemes were unregistered and that it is simply invisible to ASIC?
How does the regulator possibly provide an adequate answer to this situation?
It will be just a lot easier to direct it’s attention and focus to the “massive public and consumer risk” in relation to quality risk insurance advisers being adequately remunerated for the incredibly valuable role they play in the financial protection of Australians.