In a statement, ASIC said it became aware that Phillip Emidio Bruni had been dishonest and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, including by retrospectively creating advice documents and reproducing a client’s signature.
The corporate regulator reviewed meta data from Mr Bruni’s advice documents and found that in response to statutory notices, he had created replicas of statements of advice documents that he was required by law to create and retain but had not.
Additionally, Mr Bruni attempted to cover up his failure to obtain a signed ‘authority to proceed’ from a client, and copied and pasted his client’s signature from a ‘fact-find’ document (which outlines a client’s circumstances and needs) without the client’s consent or approval.
Further, it was noted Mr Bruni did not tell his licensee or ASIC that the documents produced to ASIC were not copies of original documents, and only admitted to creating the replica documents and the ‘authority to proceed’ when questioned by ASIC.
In its review, ASIC also found that Mr Bruni had failed to give appropriate advice or provide advice documents to his clients. He also failed to act in the best interests of his clients or to prioritise their interests.
It found that when Mr Bruni was providing advice, it did not objectively assess the information provided by his clients or tailor his recommendations to their circumstances.
As an example, in relation to property investment through an SMSF, Mr Bruni did not make adequate inquiries to assess if an SMSF was indeed appropriate or whether his client could undertake the role of an SMSF trustee.
Additionally, Mr Bruni could not demonstrate that he had investigated alternative products or strategies that could help his clients achieve their goals.
Further, ASIC found that Mr Bruni also failed to provide information to his clients about the costs, benefits and consequences of his recommendations, which would have helped them make better informed decisions.
“ASIC’s decision reflects our expectation that financial advisers uphold the attributes of honesty and professionalism in their work,” said ASIC commissioner Danielle Press.
“Providing false evidence to ASIC under any circumstances is a breach of the law and will not be tolerated. ASIC expects advisers to adhere to the law at all times and meet their obligations of providing appropriate advice that is in the best interests of their clients.”
The banning of Mr Bruni will be recorded on ASIC’s Financial Advisers Register and the Banned and Disqualified Persons Register.
Why not leave AMP and just sell AMP products because you want to? You stay because all your costs are subsidized by AMP…
what a load of BS… advisers in the old days choose AMP because of BOLR which means the adviser has a guaranteed buyer and at a higher rate than the normal market.
Its called smart business, don’t get mad son. We farm out the compliance work cause we don’t want to do it, its a waste of our time we are advisers and we do what we are good at which is giving advice and helping clients. Plus we get the advantage of having AMP behind us, people will and are still are using AMP because unlike all the news reports we still have relationships with our clients. I don’t care what anyone says people will always go back to big brands they know..
Stop with the old narrative AMP is only AMP. If I want to recommend SunSuper I can… If it is in the clients best interest we must give the advice that is in the clients best interest at all times.
Just because you might be self employed doesn’t mean you give better advice than AMP advisers salaried or self-employed. Get over yourself, Its getting old. plus I hear if you have your own Licencee you can just ignore your audit outcomes that are “independent” because you are the licencee can’t see any problem with this in the future…. the small self licences wont stand a chance if ASIC come knocking
Its like saying all industry fund planners are shit cause they only can recommend one product what a load of rubbish I don’t believe that. Which I don’t think that is the case I think anyone getting advice is helping put that client into a better position limited yes but better to get advice eg moving back to 50% growth in retirement than not review it and be 100 Growth while in retirement during a market crash.
Licensees create a culture in order to grow FUM. There are great advisers that live within these cults but their brainwashed into thinking they are “normal”. They even get their business and coaching support internally and they live the dreams of others. AMP for example call clients “registers”. The licensee operating these cults restricts communications with external parties based on how much and if, they paid a fee to be on their APL. They block email communications from their competitors and it goes on. They heavily subsidize the advice business in order to channel more FUM into the platform.
The current environment is like a Doctor working for a Drug Company and we’re saying the Drug Company should be held responsible for the Doctor’s behaviour. In that environment you’ll always be heavily regulated. Planners like Doctors should be directly accountable for their own actions. It’s fair to say let’s look at our “real enemies” but I say given the amount of intervention, red tape, FASEA… that strategy is clearly not working. Time to look internally, at ourselves. Why not leave AMP and just sell AMP products because you want to? You stay because all your costs are subsidized by AMP…so you’re not really self employed are you? On that point there is nothing wrong with being a distribution salesperson for AMP but plz just call yourself that.
Re: Comment about advisers changing licensee. Google “Poor Advice”. I told approx 200 University students to write about laws in the advice industry and I got back 200 cases of advisers providing poor advice and licensee hoping from 2015 to 2018. I’ve been respecting my fellow advisers for 20 years but I’ve had enough. That strategy clearly dosen’t work. During that time I’ve seen brands like AMP just get bigger and bigger and five independent advice firms fold. Time to get your own house in order. So just why do we have FoFA, Optin, LIF, FASEA, declining business models, advisers being somewhere in the class of a used car salemans. Sitting there and preaching about professionalism whilst you get your subsidized dealer group fees paid for by a some product distributor is not professionalism.
The the person who wrote…
“I can now appreciate why some advisers work at AMP in 2014, Westpac in 2015, CBA 2016, ANZ 2017, NAB, 2018 earn $200K to $500K in bonuses and leave the industry”
I call total BS on that mate. Provide some factual data to back that up. You clearly have no actual understanding of the bank advice businesses or remuneration models. Don’t provide commentary using outragous assumptions and/or embellishments stated as fact. You are living in 2005, time to wake up and respect your fellow professionals and appreciate that their licensee doesnt determine their capability, professionalism or earnings.
Banning matters not. Per article below Amanda Ritchie was still free and working as a bookkeeper (handling peoples money!) as at May 2019.
How can the public trust us as a profession if we just tell crooks off but they don’t get any real penalty….
ASIC bans Shepparton woman from providing financial services
Posted 16 Oct 2015, 10:56am http://www.abc.net.au
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has permanently banned Amanda Ritchie from providing financial services, after an internal investigation.
Mrs Ritchie worked for two financial service providers, M&S Services and Magnitude, a subsidiary of Westpac, from 2003 to 2014.
In a statement, the regulator said that between 2009 and 2014, Mrs Ritchie created false documents like bank statements, emails and letters to deceive clients.
ASIC also found she engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and transferred funds from clients’ accounts without authorisation.
Anonymous – As a self employed adviser paying my own way I find that comment highly insulting.
We are no different to you we pay the licence to do a job. You might pay someone directly. Difference is clients are still protected by AMP as all our advice is backed by them.
Whats going to happen to the client if you make a mistake it be another Storm case all over again no one got sweet f all.
The narrative all AMP planners are bad is getting old time grow up. the real enemies are the Industry funds and insurance companies trying to stop planners doing great work for clients
So if I’m from Melbourne, drive my Toyota and crashed it, should the newspaper headline read “Melbournian driver crashes his car” or “Toyota driver crashes his car”?? Stop bloody slamming the entire company because of a person.
Info is key 45 minutes ago.
To Gav, time to get over the AMP licencee train mate, most AMP planners are self-employed no different to AON Hewit etc
As a self employed adviser paying my own way I find that comment highly insulting.
@CV
Yes, the licensee has responsibilities but since 2013 and with best interest duties advisers now have a fiduciary obligation. Add in FASEA codes. The licensee is off the hook so to speak. With that type of mentality however, I can now appreciate why some advisers work at AMP in 2014, Westpac in 2015, CBA 2016, ANZ 2017, NAB, 2018 earn $200K to $500K in bonuses and leave the industry, whilst the honest, hardworking advisers battle along paying for the sins of others. Some personal accountability is surely lacking in those comments and shows why the present licensing system is so deeply flawed.
In response to “Anonymous”
What we do as Advisers is very important. I see a once in a career opportunity right now to salvage something out of the mess we are all in.
Every Building, Construction and Engineering Firm, large and small, is run and directed by people who have qualifications and experience in that field. Not a bad notion really so as to ensure the buildings they design and create do not fall down all that often.
However, in Wealth and Financial Planning this is not the case with the people who are in control is it? The building has now collapsed and I see a lot of pain as a result.
The single biggest reason for all the problems we saw at the RC, and for all the new regulations before and since, is the people who have been running Wealth – in particular Dealer Group Heads and Senior Staff. Go have a look at their CV and you will find a distinct lack of qualifications and experience. If you are in a Bank / Aligned Dealer Group and you are about to lose your job I do feel a bit sorry for you except to the extent you were complicit with the behaviour of your Dark Masters.
You label this person a “rogue” Anonymous as you don’t know any better and that helps you make sense of the world. However the truth is that this and each and every one of these “rogues” was not a fit and proper person to have been licensed and evidence to that effect was available well before the crisis they created. Having worked for a brief time in a Bank Group I can attest to this as fact. Do you really think these people got out of bed one day and decided to be “rogues” having been totally fine before that? Unlikely. Management appointed and licensed them showing exceptionally poor judgement in every case as they just are not, and never will be, the right people to be in control of the Superannuation Industry.
CV check
To Gav, time to get over the AMP licencee train mate, most AMP planners are self-employed no different to AON Hewit etc
No advice documents required here and apparently, ASIC does not see any advice being conflicted?
As part of your Cbus membership, you have access to our team of qualified financial advisers.
Cbus Advice Services can provide you with advice over the phone about:
– our range of super products
– choosing an investment option that’s right for you
– contribution strategies including salary sacrifice and personal contributions
– choosing the most appropriate insurance cover
– nominating beneficiaries
– planning the best ways to maximise your super for retirement.
To ensure our Advisers maintain their level of skill and knowledge we ensure they adhere strictly to our Continuing Professional Development (PDF) policy.
So does this infer that the crooks were really at these banks? Me thinks the regulator APRA and certinaly the minions running the show at the bank turned a blind eye….
“ASIC’s decision reflects our expectation that financial advisers uphold the attributes of honesty and professionalism in their work,” said ASIC commissioner Danielle Press.
So when is the clampdown on industry funds giving advice and fudging it as ‘general advice’ coming??
[quote=CV check]Dear “Are you serious”,
1. Yes, it is the fault of the AFSL (Licensee). That’s the frickin job mate – to supervise Advisors. Y’know that law type stuff Hillbilly. Furthermore the AFSL is responsible for ALL advice given by Representatives.
2. As you clearly don’t understand the AFSL responsibility, and you are not familiar with any aspect of the Corporations Law, I suggest that you not comment any further.
Spend your redundancies wisely unqualified Bank Dealer Group staff. Your time is up![/quote][quote=CV check]Dear “Are you serious”,
1. Yes, it is the fault of the AFSL (Licensee). That’s the frickin job mate – to supervise Advisors. Y’know that law type stuff Hillbilly. Furthermore the AFSL is responsible for ALL advice given by Representatives.
2. As you clearly don’t understand the AFSL responsibility, and you are not familiar with any aspect of the Corporations Law, I suggest that you not comment any further.
Spend your redundancies wisely unqualified Bank Dealer Group staff. Your time is up![/quote]
Who are you CV check? I see you slamming everyone on here. This is a rogue adviser mate, even ASIC didn’t know he’d done alot of it until he’d admitted it under pressure. A rogue adviser doesn’t mean the whole licensee is flawed and that everyone in that company deserves to be branded as bad because of it, most of these people are nice, hard working people with families.
Did you read anywhere or know of any evidence that either of those licensee’s objected to the ruling, I’m sure they both would happily say what he’s done is bad, make sure the clients are compensated for any losses and we’ve got another “rogue” adviser gone.
You just come across as a bitter old man who’s not coping with the financial environment yourself and needs to berate other people to make yourself feel better.
Clearly ASIC staff reading this article. 85% if their time spent on internal matters and no balks to hold a major ASFL to account.
Dear “Are you serious”,
1. Yes, it is the fault of the AFSL (Licensee). That’s the frickin job mate – to supervise Advisors. Y’know that law type stuff Hillbilly. Furthermore the AFSL is responsible for ALL advice given by Representatives.
2. As you clearly don’t understand the AFSL responsibility, and you are not familiar with any aspect of the Corporations Law, I suggest that you not comment any further.
Spend your redundancies wisely unqualified Bank Dealer Group staff. Your time is up!
Are you serious – It the licensees fault he forged signature and produced fake SOAs? yeeeah right on..
He would not need SOA’s if he was not licensed. This is a clear demonstration that advice can be delivered without being licensed (ASIC I hope did make sure that some sort of advice was given and acted on by a client). Is the incentive to being licensed over for individual advisers? The only people who can do this sort of stuff is Industry Fund super staff I believe? Could be wrong.
[quote=Anon]I blame the disreputable licensees.[/quote][quote=Anon]I blame the disreputable licensees.[/quote] It the licensees fault he forged signature and produced fake SOAs? yeeeah right on..
This would not have happened had Mr Bruni completed the FASEA exam and spent thousands of dollars on further education, this would have eradicated any dishonesty from Mr Bruni.
Actually, come to think of it, Mr Bruni probably carried out this dishonest act to pay for his further education.
Congratulations CCB (Chief Chest Beater). Its easy to knock over the low hanging fruit. When is ASIC going to actually charge one or more of the more difficult cases i.e. board members, directors and/or senior managers of these licensees? Jelly knees? And still waiting for ASIC to disclose the contents of their 2018 gift register.
“Providing false evidence to ASIC under any circumstances is a breach of the law and will not be tolerated. ASIC expects advisers to adhere to the law at all times and meet their obligations of providing appropriate advice that is in the best interests of their clients.”
Except if you’re AMP?
more of this come methinks
Hey ASIC, where is your comment on the inadequate supervision provided by Westpac and The Financial Link in the matter?
we are all sitting ducks
I blame the disreputable licensees.