In a recent hearing of the parliamentary joint committee on corporations and financial services, ASIC was taken to task by Liberal MP Jason Falinski on why it chose to call former Fiscus Capital employee Mark Kawecki, who was fined $30,000 for dishonest conduct in a Melbourne court last month, a “financial adviser” in its media release around Mr Kawecki’s sentencing.
Mr Kawecki was found to have breached ASX listing rules around the number of unrelated shareholders allowed on a share register before company shares can be quoted and traded on the exchange, by providing false information in share applications for four companies undertaking IPOs between 2015 and 2016.
“I think it would be fair to say that referencing that Mr Kawecki was a financial adviser sends a message to consumers that they need to be cautious of people calling themselves financial advisers,” Mr Falinski told ASIC commissioner Danielle Press.
“My problem with this is Mr Kawecki doesn’t appear anywhere on ASIC’s AFSL register. He doesn’t appear to have ever been registered as a financial adviser or planner, and he certainly doesn’t appear on any register going back to 2015-16 when the contraventions took place.
“Do you think it’s worth making it clear that when someone is fined in this nature that they’re not a financial adviser, so that we can instil in consumers confidence that when someone sees a financial planner or a financial adviser that they are registered and are subjected to some form of professional conduct and training?”
Responses from ASIC around the circumstances of the release, which Ms Press took on notice at the time, indicate that Mr Kawecki worked under the title of “advisor” when employed at the Melbourne corporate advisory firm during “part of the relevant period of his offending”.
“Mr Kawecki was an authorised representative contracted to provide financial services on behalf of Fiscus Capital Pty Ltd, the corporate authorised representative of Nexia Corporate Melbourne Pty Ltd, the holder of AFS licence 460701,” ASIC said.
“Nexia’s AFS licence authorised it to provide, among other things, financial product advice to wholesale clients in relation to securities. Fiscus, as Nexia’s corporate authorised representative, was authorised to provide such financial product advice on behalf of Nexia. Fiscus, in turn, authorised Mr Kawecki to provide these services on behalf of Nexia.”
ASIC further stated that restrictions around the use of the words ‘financial adviser’ and ‘financial planner’ had only come into force since the introduction of the FASEA standards in 2019, and as such Mr Kawecki’s categorisation as a “former financial adviser” in the release was valid.
Mr Kawecki had also been listed as a “former certified financial planner” on the Fiscus website, ASIC said.
And if he used to work for ASIC, he would be a formal financial services regulator
Should I just call myself an unregistered doctor/surgeon and see how that plays out when I attempt to perform surgery? Would I be referred to in the media as a doctor?
ASIC is corrupt and broken.
It needs to be rectally reamed and started afresh
It’s time that the Government (ie the representatives of the consumers/public) take a good hard look at ASIC and their toxic culture towards over-governance, over-regulation, and heavy-handed treatment of those working in actual Financial Advice roles. They’ve had their ranks filled by largely incompetent, public-servants with little-to-no knowledge over the subject matter they’re tasked to regulate, and they go out of their way to exercise any and all power they possibly can over even the smallest of matters. On more than one occasion when there hasn’t been sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, they’ve chosen to either use outdated rules and regulations, or simply use the cover of “the possibility of future wrongdoing or non-compliance” to get their way. It’s unethical and does nothing to protect consumers/investors/clients, and certainly doesn’t provide them with the services that they want, need, nor in the way they wish to receive those services.
Melissa Caddick held herself out to be a financial advisers. Caveat emptor, indeed.
So net result is ASIC again lied and are trying to tell advisers they need to complete an ethics course. I’m surprised ASIC know how to spell ethics.
Of course he isn’t a financial adviser. However, this is so far down the list of things that are wrong with ASIC and the red tape that we have to jump through. C’mon Jason, I get you like a bit of political point scoring, but remember that your party has been in Government for 7 years and so far you have only made it harder. ASIC are only there to implement the legislation that is in place. Until you get out and talk to individual advisers and stop getting fed the BS from both your own party and the executives from the majors and Industry funds, you are never going to make things better.
Yep it’s been 7 years, consider these the good times. Imagine if Labor were in? Good luck.
This is why real financial advisers have no faith or trust in the regulator!
An organisation with integrity would hold themselves to their own standards.
What’s the FPA do? $12 million in cash, paying a clown $500K a year and they can’t even ask the question or defend our honour. Imagine if I tried to take ASIC to court for defamation, they’d close me down because my FSG is the wrong colour…$1,096 a year for Zip, what a waste of space they are.
Because its about politics, not compliance. Always remember that.
This is all just part of ASIC’s campaign to indiscriminately vilify and persecute all licensed financial advisers.
Thanks to ASIC’s concerted campaign to turn consumers away from licensed, professional advisers, consumers are being lured into things like CFD trading, Mayfair Platinum style products, Bitcoin, SMSF real estate spruikers, and “Copy trading”. Anyone who loses money on these things should seek compensation from ASIC.
Should have been referred to as an former AR for Fiscus…
and I am a lawyer (well not really, I studied several subjects at Uni and watched night court as a kid). love how you can bend the truth to suit when you are a regulator
Yep in true Chuck Rhodes style!
So it is justified because ASIC relied on a false and misleading statement on a website to call him a former financial adviser. WOW, just F***ing WOW
“Mr Kawecki had also been listed as a “former certified financial planner” on the Fiscus website, ASIC said.”
With the utmost respect, ASIC are talking out their proverbial…. Call him what he is, a corporate adviser, M&A adviser, ASX listing adviser. In no way was the fellow a financial adviser in the way that your everyday person would characterise a financial adviser… he didn’t advise on personal investments, super, insurances etc to Mums and Dads. His crime was something a financial adviser would never get involved with.
ASIC should be embarrassed and ashamed at the way they have been so derogatory here and their use of the term is not valid at all. They are just too pig-headed to apologise. Thank you Mr Falinski for taking them to task on this!
Respect has to be earned. At the moment, ASIC has zero.
They are going to great lengths to even defend themselves tarnishing our name inappropriately. Of course they are…
The same lengths they went to to protect their two corrupt leaders in Shipton and Crennan.
I wonder if they will classify Mr Shipton as a financial planner when he is convicted.
No, he’ll be classified as a shifty bastard by the court that matters, the ‘Court of Public Opinion’.
ASIC don’t let the facts get in the way. Anything to tarnish the reputation of the advice sector further to assist their mates, the great ‘untouchables’, over at the Industry Super Funds. ASIC are on the nose with many on both sides of the political fence in Canberra and given their poor conduct, it beggars belief that there still has not been a clean out within our dear regulator. Only in Australia hey!
Damage is done and they won’t retract
typically Bureaucrats ..cant ever admit a mistake
Thanks again, ASIC.
So if he’d called himself a public servant, would ASIC have used that description?
Are ASIC staff so dull that they cannot think for themselves, and determine what his job actually was?
It beggars belief that these people are regulating our industry.