Former Australian Capital Reserve directors found guilty
The former directors of Australian Capital Reserve have been sentenced to separate terms of imprisonment by the NSW District Court following an investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions (ASIC).
Samuel Pogson, Murray Lapham and Steven Martin will serve their imprisonment by way of Intensive Correction Order (ICO) after pleading guilty to one charge each under the NSW Crime Act of making a false and misleading statement to obtain a financial advantage for the company.
Pogson also pleaded guilty to one charge under the Corporations Act of making a false or misleading statement in a form lodged with ASIC.
The court sentenced Pogson and Lapham each to two years imprisonment to be served by ICO, commencing 21 March 2012 until 20 March 2014. Pogson was sentenced to an additional one-year term as a result of his charge under the Corporations Act, the regulator stated.
Martin was sentenced to one year and four months ICO-based imprisonment, spanning from 21 March 2012 until 20 July 2013.
ASIC alleged that the three directors lodged a statement in Australian Capital Reserve's Prospectus 6 on 7 April 2004, which contained the financial statements of ACR's parent company, Castle Investment Company (CIC) and controlled entities.
"The CIC stated profit before income tax as at 31 December 2003 of $7,409,483 was alleged to be false or misleading because the stated profit before income tax was inflated," ASIC's statement read.
Pogson's statement in a director's declaration in the prospectus that the financial statements of CIC gave a true and fair view of the company's financial position as at 31 December 2003 was also found to be false or misleading by the court.
The matter was prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
Recommended for you
ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test.
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
