NAB FP said in a statement it reached out to all impacted clients either directly or via their financial adviser by way of letters, registered mail, phone calls and direct contact.
In late 2016, during a regular compliance review, NAB FP identified that one of its advisers and his support staff did not follow company policy and incorrectly witnessed beneficiary nomination forms for clients.
While there was no ill intent or financial loss to the client, forms had been signed with only one witness present, and a second person signed as a witness without being present, NAB said.
Subsequent investigations found that this had occurred in other instances.
“Since identifying the issue, we have undertaken a comprehensive program to rectify the matter directly with advisers to ensure the behaviour will not be repeated,” said NAB Financial Planning general manager Tim Steele.
“We have also worked with our clients to correctly execute their beneficiary nomination forms, and we can confirm this process is near complete.”
NAB first announced the matter in May 2017, before issuing a breach closure notice to ASIC on 19 July 2018.
“ASIC has informed us they do not propose to make any further inquiries in relation to the matter at this time, on the basis of the information currently available, and we will continue to engage with them proactively and transparently as we work to close out this matter for our clients,” Mr Steele said.
“We are working to build trust with our clients and we have the right measures and processes in place to deliver on their expectations.”
The real question is, who in NAB admin processed the forms with only one witness?Seriously, once you’ve identified
that a specific office is sending in forms incorrectly you jump on it. What do these people in admin get paid for besides turning up to work each day?
How did this not come out at any other of the institutional advice firms – i find it impossible to believe this practice was confined to NAB.
I’ve always contended that the BDN 2 witnesses thing is a joke, I’d hazard a guess and say 100% of IFA’s have done an appointment on their own out of the office. Should my client be punished by not having their estate planning wishes catered for because I’m accommodating their wish to see them at their work or home? Spare me.
No joke mate , its a legal thing . You should know that .This is the problem with the fools young and old in the Industry . Otherwise it is dishonest and corrupt !!!
I feel very sorry for Koresh Haughton. Koresh was banned for life for applying an electronic signature for five clients, all of whom subsequently originally signed replacement documents.
ASIC staff attach either other signatures using electronic means all the time, and think nothing of it.
Banks fake signatures on an industrial scale, and ASIC think nothing of it.
Why hasn’t ASIC banned all the NAB advisers who faked signatures?
There are two sets of rules. One for banks, with no penalties or comeback, and another for everyone else.
Nicely whitewashed!!! conversation by NAB to client ” We have employed crook financial planners who are still working that forged Doc’s . Happy with that ??ok then , its all Ok with ASIC , nothing to see hear …….
Just to be clear what they did was wrong, however it is not forgery
Gee that took awhile. Hopefully no one died while they took their time to 1 admit it and 2 do something about it.
hang on ASIC, you were banning advisers only a year ago from smaller AFSLs for similar conduct and CFS were doing the same to cleanse Fin Wizz and Count ahead of the impending CBA demerger, now it’s no longer a problem????! #doublestandards101
They’d be better off lobbying the Government to change this stupid piece of legislation. Two witnesses, come on. Could someone explain to me why 2?
The adviser would always be in the presence of the client and we all know ASIC doesn’t think we’re trustworthy or honest.
Just like is required for a will / POA / etc etc. if we want to play with the adults we should act like adults