Former adviser banned for multiple breaches
The corporate regulator has banned former financial adviser Gawad Nabi for three years.
Nabi was an authorised representative of Life Plan FP Pty Ltd from 23 March 2018 to 31 March 2021, a director from 15 November 2019 to 30 December 2022, and a responsible manager from 19 January 2020 to 31 August 2022.
He is also a director of Guardian Group Financial Planning Pty Ltd, a position he has held since 5 January 2018.
An ASIC review of advice provided by Nabi found he had “breached various financial services laws by failing to act in the best interests of clients, failing to provide advice that was appropriate to his clients, by not prioritising the interest of his clients above his own (or that of his AFS licensee), and by providing his clients with a disclosure statement that contained misleading or deceptive statements”.
The regulator said that it found Nabi has failed to maintain the high standards expected of a provider of financial services, that he does not understand the duties and obligations imposed by the Corporations Act on a provider of financial services, and that he cannot be relied upon to discharge the duties and obligations imposed by the act on a provider of financial services.
It added that the banning is part of ASIC’s “ongoing efforts to improve standards across the financial advice industry”.
This is the second adviser cancellation this month after a Melbourne-based financial adviser was permanently banned by ASIC after making false and misleading statements to clients in an effort for them to transfer their superannuation.
Kudzanai Philip Dzawo was permanently banned from providing any financial services, performing any function involved in the carrying on of a financial services business, and from controlling an entity that carries on a financial services business.
The regulator said that Dzawo “dishonestly attempted to induce clients to transfer their superannuation into a bank account he controlled by making false and misleading statements to the clients”.
Recommended for you
Sequoia Financial Group has declined by five financial advisers in the past week, four of whom have opened up a new AFSL, according to Wealth Data.
Insignia Financial chief executive Scott Hartley has detailed whether the firm will be selecting an exclusive bidder for the second phase of due diligence as it awaits revised bids from three private equity players.
Insignia Financial has reported a statutory net loss after tax of $17 million in its first half results, although the firm has noted cost optimisation means this is an improvement from a $50 million loss last year.
With alternative funds being described as “impossible” for fund managers to target towards advisers without the support of BDMs for education, Money Management explores the evolving nature of the distribution role.
I have been making this advocation for more than 10 years, that banning a financial adviser like this is hopeless like a grim reaper and a failure in regulatory supervision since 2004 Reform Act became operative, that adds to financial advisers' ASIC investigation levies. This begs the questions of: (1) harm to the clients' welfare, they just get abandoned and if a good adviser takes them on, PI insurance will not cover the adviser - Catch22 regulatory failure - no replacement advisory administration. (2) Restorative justice to the failed adviser, did he pass the FASEA exam before 31 December 2021? ASIC should be arranging retraining as an enforceable undertaking to bring the adviser back up to compliance standards before licensing reinstatement. [3] The ASIC history of banning causes PI underwriters in London to assess Australia as higher risk that inflates future PI insurance premiums that harms the investment advisor industry - Catch22 regulatory failure without restorative justice and retraining..[4] All the Executives caught out in the Hayne Royal Commission misconduct should have also been subjected to enforceable retraining in financial compliance arranged by ASIC so they sit in the same training room as advisers who failed in their regulatory obligations (ie, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander). Can you imagine, ASIC corporate lawyers teaching compliance in retraining? UNTHINKABLE !!!
What does he do after three years???.He sits FEW EXAMS GETS THEM RIGHT ONCE and he can apply again promising to be a good boy. HE WAS A RESPONSIBLE ENTITY 3 years is not near enough JG