Mr Sinha was an employed representative of Westpac from 2001 to 10 November 2014, ASIC said in a statement. He will be banned from providing financial services until 2 June 2022.
ASIC said it found that Mr Sinha systematically failed to meet his ongoing advice service obligations over a period of six years while he was employed by Westpac, including a failure to conduct ongoing reviews for at least nine clients.
The clients had paid for ongoing advice services and were entitled to receive these reviews, the statement said.
ASIC also found that Mr Sinha’s conduct demonstrated that he was not adequately trained, or was not competent to provide financial services during his employment with Westpac, and was likely to breach a financial services law in the future.
ASIC deputy chair Peter Kell said, “ASIC is committed to improving conduct in the wealth management industry and we will act to remove advisers who do not live up to the high standards expected of financial advisers.”
Westpac is remediating the clients impacted by Mr Sinha’s conduct and, as of 28 February 2017, has remediated $1,473,914 in respect of Mr Sinha’s ongoing advice failings, ASIC said.
Mr Sinha has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC’s decision.
ifa reported in October 2016 that ASIC had found several instances at the major financial institutions where customers were being charged for advice they never received.
ASIC said its investigation into Mr Sinha’s conduct followed a breach notification by Westpac. Westpac later identified to ASIC that 177 clients were charged fees who did not receive service by Mr Sinha.
You must achieve your bonus targets even if you have to act illegally……what you got caught… well your now dismissed we will not tolerate anyone who is employed and gets caught out…..your dismissed!!!!
ASIC OFFICE: geez now we have to get of our backsides to announce to the world how we did our job..
This has only really been cleaned up in the last 2 years.
Typical of Westpac always pushing staff for new sales at all costs. Management road on his shoulders for many years and turned a blind eye to lack of reviews. Only had good review monitoring systems for reviews in past few years, before that was anyone’s guess when a review was done or tracked. I think a scapegoat for poor leadership/management at National level over the past 7 years. No wonder so many experienced planners decided to bail out of a business that’s culture went down the drain.
This is the new world. Charge an ongoing fee to deliver an ongoing service if it’s in the client’s best interest. I don’t mean a rubbish “legislative watch” and “annual review/valuation” with a movie invite. Something meaningful and valued in the eyes of a reasonable person which justifies the fee. If you don’t want to deliver an ongoing service, then don’t charge an ongoing fee.
I guess it won’t be time before ASIC writes to advisers and asks the questions. How many clients do you have? 177 clients spread over 200 working days.
An interesting aside, The $110 Billion Australian Super Fund has 1.2 million members but only employees 30 Financial planners, perhaps industry funds have a different attitude to annual reviews?
Absolute lies and a cover up, its far worse than what they are letting on here. Very poor business practices and appalling management. He’s the tip of the iceberg at Westpac
[quote=Anonymous]Yet again Big 4 bank bashing is on top of ASIC’s agenda – fair enough the guy didn’t meet his commitments and should be punished but why only big 4 banks targeted? Is it fairness for the client they are looking for or just headlines I wonder…many IFA’s out there need to be looked at[/quote] Reviewing a client merely meets the need of the customer. New business meets the need of the adviser to survive and keep his job due to pressure from management to achieve targets. This is why the banks typically focus their salesmen and women on NEW Business and why reviews simply aren’t a priority. Best interests indeed.
I wonder if the managers who protected him and probably put him up in lights as the start performer all those years will get dragged over the coals too. I am sure they are ducking for cover now!
Yet again Big 4 bank bashing is on top of ASIC’s agenda – fair enough the guy didn’t meet his commitments and should be punished but why only big 4 banks targeted? Is it fairness for the client they are looking for or just headlines I wonder…many IFA’s out there need to be looked at
What on earth were they charging for ongoing services if 9 clients totalled $1,473,914 over 13 years….and since ASIC found he wasn’t trained adequately, what vicarious responsibility is ASIC ascribing to WESPAC or has the adviser been thrown under the corporate bus…….once again?
“Westpac later identified to ASIC that 177 clients were charged fees who did not receive service by Sinha”
It wasn’t $1,473,914 in fees, that is the total amount of their investments. The average investment amount was around $160,000 each. These would be lower end clients that he never felt were worth dealing with because of the pressure for upfront business by the BT Financial Group.
I don’t think that’s correct. It says they remediated $1,473,914. That all may not be fees, but supposed losses as a result of lack of ongoing service.
How can that be one person’s fault in an organisation like Westpac? Why his managers and their managers have been spared?
This guy was educated and complied with the education requirements. That is why the new reforms are POINTLESS.
Was he degree qualified ?Was his boss degree qualified ? Was the bank manager in charge Degree Qualified ?ASIC thinks this will solve all problems ……. not
Who was auditing this guy? By the way also, if he’s likely to breach in the future as per ASIC, what happens after the 5 year ban?
ASIC only acts on breach notifications from the big four , lucky for all those others that did not review clients when receiving the fees for the service!!
too bad ASIC hasn’t gone down a level to other institutions (credit unions) that received ongoing fees and did not review clients.
He gets five years, what does Westpac get?? Again, a bank adviser pushed for sales over service hung out to dry while the system that drives the behaviour is allowed to continue….