• subs-bellGet the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin

Sentry denies links to bankrupt adviser

Sentry Group has rejected claims made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that the non-aligned dealer group had offered a banned and bankrupt former adviser a position.

Allan Vissenjoux – who was banned by ASIC for three years for being an undischarged bankrupt – told the AAT during an appeal of his ban that Sentry was prepared to bring him on as a sub-authorised representative.

According to the AAT ruling by senior member John Handley, Mr Vissenjoux testified Sentry “had told him to approach them when the outcome of this review was known and his position with Sentry as a sub-authorised representative would be held for him.”

“He also recorded that Sentry were prepared to exercise detailed supervision and oversight on [his] activities... [which] would reduce any risk of harm to the public,” Mr Handley said.

A spokesperson from Sentry said Mr Vissenjoux had never been offered a position at the licensee and would not have been hired even if the ban had been overturned on appeal.

He told ifa that Mr Vissenjoux had approached Sentry about a position but had been turned down by the compliance officer due to the banning order.

During the AAT hearing, Mr Vissenjoux claimed his agreement with Sentry was recorded in a document which “he had left in his car,” Mr Handley said.


Mr Vissenjoux then claimed he had an electronic copy on his laptop but was unable to show the tribunal because his laptop “had crashed some weeks earlier”, the AAT ruling found.

Mr Vissenjoux failed to call the Sentry development manager or compliance manager to testify on his behalf, claiming he “had already utilised so much of their time that I felt guilty to ask them to do ... anything further for me”.

Mr Handley ruled he could not confirm Mr Vissenjoux’s claims about Sentry due to a lack of evidence.

“The applicant spoke of a number of discussions that he had had with senior persons at Sentry and arrangements that he had entered into with it that would be fulfilled at the expiration of the banning order,” he said.

“However he did not call those persons and the opportunity to determine whether the applicant had also satisfied those persons that he was worthy of return to the profession could not be determined.”

Mr Handley indicated that if Mr Vissenjoux had been able to prove his claims about Sentry, the outcome of the appeal may have been different.