Convicted planner permanently banned
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has permanently banned a former New South Wales Australian financial services license (AFSL) holder, Nicolai D'Lamartin, from providing financial services.
It came after D'Lamartin's previous convictions came to ASIC's attention during an investigation into the conduct of an AFSL holder in late 2015.
D'Lamartin was convicted of several counts of fraud and other related offences under the Crimes Act 1990 (NSW) in February 2014, including impersonating others and creating and using false documents to attain financial advantage, larceny, and holding and using other people's identification information.
He was convicted of three counts of fraud for impersonating another person to attain property belonging to someone else, 17 charges of fraud for impersonating another person to gain financial advantage, or misused cheques, online bank accounts or credit cards to gain financial advantaged, two charges of forgery for falsifying bank and other documents using others' names, with the intention of having someone else accept them as genuine, and one charge of dealing with property thought to be proceeds of crime, among other charges.
He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment beginning in November 2012, with a non-parole period of 20 months.
He may appeal his ban to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC's decision.
AUTHOR
Malavika Santhebennur
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
