Court documents seen by ifa reveal the extent of ASIC’s investigation into Beacon Financial Group and clarified how its directors spent the money they took from an unregistered fund.
A federal court document dated 30 June 2018 outline the corporate regulator’s efforts to appoint receivers to the companies linked to Linchpin Capital in light of unlawful activity surrounding an unregistered fund.
“On or about 10 January 2018, ASIC commenced an investigation pursuant to section 13 of the ASIC Act into the following people and entities in relation to suspected contraventions of the act:
(a) the first defendant, Linchpin Capital Group Limited (ACN 163 992 961);
(b) the second defendant, Endeavour Securities (Australia) Limited (ACN 079 988 819);
(c) Beacon Financial Group Pty Ltd (ACN 162 734 152);
(d) The Financiallink Group Pty Ltd (ACN 055 622 967);
(e) Libertas Financial Planning Pty Ltd (ACN 160 419 134);
(f) Risk and Investment Advisors Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 104 922 394);
(g) Investport Pty Ltd (ACN 160 710 190); and
(h) their officers, employees, agents and associated entities.
At the heart of ASIC’s investigation is an unregistered managed investment scheme called the Investport Income Opportunity Fund, of which Linchpin is the trustee. Linchpin is also the sole shareholder of Endeavour, the responsible entity of the scheme.
As part of its year-long investigation into the complex web of companies, court documents revealed that ASIC conducted an examination of Ian Williams, Peter Daly and Paul Nielsen – who have all been directors of Linchpin, Endeavour and a number of other companies in the Linchpin Capital Group.
ASIC’s investigation found that the Investport Income Opportunity Fund has made personal loans to directors Mr Daly and Paul Raftery.
Court documents reveal that in the period 14 September 2015 to 25 July 2017, Linchpin, as trustee of the unregistered fund, entered into a number of written loan agreements whereby it made loans to Mr Daly.
By the written loan agreements, it agreed to advance to Mr Daly a total sum of $125,000. The terms were the Linchpin standard terms. Mr Daly gave as security the shares held by him in Linchpin.
“No purpose for the loans was stated in the loan deeds,” the documents noted. However, they later reveal that “during his examination, Mr Daly said that he was advanced the funds to assist him with personal financial difficulties”.
Meanwhile, in April 2016, Linchpin entered into a loan agreement with Mr Raftery for the sum of $30,000, with an initial advance of $10,000. Linchpin entered into the written loan agreement as trustee of the unregistered fund. The security given by Mr Raftery was the shares held by him in Linchpin.
“During his examination, Ian Williams (who signed the loan deed and specific security agreement on behalf of Linchpin) said that the purpose of the loan was to pay for Mr Raftery’s divorce,” the court documents revealed.
APRA-regulated super funds could create better member outcomes by taking the sam...
Australian high-net-worth investors lost more money than their global counterpar...
The negative impact of COVID-related market volatility on clients’ super inves...