In a statement, ASIC said Ahmed Saad, a former authorised representative of Apogee Financial Planning, pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining financial advantage by deception and one count of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception on 21 April.
Mr Saad had operated a scheme that involved submitting applications for one-off advice fees to MLC super trustee NULIS Nominees, and paying the funds he received back to clients to facilitate illegal early release of their super entitlements.
The scheme had obtained more than $1.5 million on behalf of 168 clients between November 2016 and October 2017, ASIC said.
Mr Saad had been an authorised representative of Apogee since 2012 and had his authorisation revoked in late 2017. He was permanently banned from providing financial services in 2018.
The offences carry a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment each.
The matter has been adjourned until 25 October 2021 for a plea hearing before the County Court.
That’s an average of $9,000 per client.
That level of fees for someone who had so little money that they needed to access their super should have been a red flag to start with!
“…and paying the funds he received back to clients to facilitate early release of their super entitlements”
What’s the crime if clients were entitled to the early release.
Either the reporting could be better, or there’s a witch hunt going on here. Which is it?
Hi hopefully, have added the word ‘illegal’ to clarify that they were not entitled to the early release. – SK
Read the article. Adviser takes money from clients super under the guise of an advice fee, adviser then gives that money to the client. Effectively allowing them to access that part of their super when they never should have been able to.
Now these are the people who SHOULD face banning orders. NOT those who accidentally miss a line in a SoA, or are trying to do the best by their client but the regulator disagrees with the strategy, etc.
Name a single adviser “banned” for missing a line in an SoA, or trying to do the best by their client but the regulator disagreed with the strategy, etc.