SMSFs have plenty of compensation options: SPAA

smsf-trustees/self-managed-super-fund/SPAA/SMSFs/australian-prudential-regulation-authority/parliamentary-joint-committee/SMSF/superannuation-industry/australian-securities-and-investments-commission/chief-executive/

13 June 2012
| By Staff |
image
image
expand image

The Self-Managed Super Fund Professionals' Association (SPAA) has moved to correct the "misconception" that SMSF trustees have no legal options ahead of them in the event of fraud or theft.

In the wake of the Parliamentary Joint Committee inquiry into the collapse of Trio Capital, it has been widely purported that SMSFs have "nowhere to go" because they are not APRA-regulated and therefore do not have access to Part 23A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, said SPAA chief executive Andrea Slattery.

"Even some comments by those who gave evidence at the hearing gave the impression that SMSF investors had no prospect of compensation in the event of fraud or theft," said Slattery.

Slattery pointed to a recent court settlement in which an elderly woman was compensated nearly 100 per cent of her $1 million life savings that was lost in the Trio/Astarra fraud.

SPAA technical manager Peter Burgess said SMSFs could also take legal action against an adviser for losses under section 55(3) of the SIS Act, or alternatively under Corporations Law.

Part 23A of the Act gives the Minister discretion to order compensation for members of APRA-regulated funds who have suffered losses due to theft or fraud.

But Part 23A is not always enacted to compensate members of APRA-regulated funds, said Slattery.

"There was a postal fraud a couple of years ago, and an overseas Mafia theft of monies out of bank accounts that were from super funds. None of those were instigated under Part 23A, and they're having to find other avenues," she said.

Burgess said the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority are clamouring for alerts and disclaimers for SMSFs, and for SMSF trustees to be required to sign a declaration saying they are aware they are not covered under Part 23A.

"We think it's important you get that wording right. Yes it's true they're not covered under Part 23, but they potentially have other options available to them," Burgess said.

"APRA-regulated funds also have a role to play here in disclosing the limitations of Part 23 to their members," he added.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

2 months 1 week ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

2 months 1 week ago

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

4 months 1 week ago

The corporate regulator has issued infringement notices to three AFSLs whose financial advisers provided personal advice to a retail client while unregistered....

1 day 8 hours ago

A Sydney financial adviser has been permanently banned from providing any financial services, with the regulator deriding his “lack of integrity, trustworthiness and prof...

4 weeks ago

ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test....

6 days 7 hours ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND