Australian Broker forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

$7500: The price of crossing ASIC

Notify me of new replies via email
Australian Broker | 06 Sep 2012, 05:00 AM Agree 0
A director of a Sydney-based brokerage has copped the first civil penalty under the National Credit Act, in a verdict being trumpeted by ASIC as an example of its resolve in enforcing the new laws
  • Nicole | 06 Sep 2012, 11:54 AM Agree 0
    Oh Please...This shows how Pathetic ASIC is. This was clearly a breach and the company should have been shut down after the first week of no action. $75,000 would have shown some teeth, not a poultry $7,500!!!
  • Keithy of the West | 06 Sep 2012, 12:05 PM Agree 0
    Is this something for ASIC to crow about?. A fine of $7,500 for someone trading wihtout a licence??. Should have had another diget on the fine
  • Sarah | 06 Sep 2012, 12:07 PM Agree 0
    I agree. ASIC is useless.
  • The Observer | 06 Sep 2012, 12:11 PM Agree 0
    I guess ASIC can't win. If they would have placed a heaver fine (say $75,000) then ASIC would have been responsible for placing the broker and perhaps his family into a financial mess and possibly onto the street.
  • Goodo | 06 Sep 2012, 12:18 PM Agree 0
    This is not a reflection on ASIC but a reflection on our pathetic court system.
    A rouge like this should have had the book thrown at him. If he ends up homeless so be it, or maybe he can seek a licenced broker to help him raise the funds.
  • sidbroker | 06 Sep 2012, 12:38 PM Agree 0
    Well said observer, seems like it is a good thing the previous two commentators arn`t judges.
  • sidbroker | 06 Sep 2012, 12:40 PM Agree 0
    Oh, Sara, ASIC is very useful as it provides jobs for the boys and girls.
  • Katie | 06 Sep 2012, 12:41 PM Agree 0
    I just hope consumers weren't conned by this guy
  • Patrick | 06 Sep 2012, 12:56 PM Agree 0
    I do not get the comment by The Observer. The total consequences of illegal action are the perpetrators problem and of no concern unless there are clear mitigating circumstances. ASIC appear to have muddled about issuing warning after warning and then dkleivered a littel slap on the wrist with a nominal $7,500 fine. I mean this is the commission on just $1.2 million in loans. The fine should have stripped the broker of all income earned from 12 months unlicenced trading and then some.
  • David | 06 Sep 2012, 01:13 PM Agree 0
    Nicole,Keithy and Sarah: Suggest you READ the article. ASIC does not impose the fine, the Federal Court does
  • Ray - Perth | 06 Sep 2012, 01:21 PM Agree 0
    Oh come on folks, give ASIC some space. I think they are doing an awesome job in the short time they have had the responsibility. All this shows is that they are keeping a close eye on us and when they find something wrong they are being still cautious and not over-reacting and accidently put someone out of business. $7,500 and loss of ability to operate and loss of income IS a tough penalty when all taken into consideration. BTW,it is the politicians who set the fines, not ASIC
  • Positive Broker | 06 Sep 2012, 03:28 PM Agree 0
    Reading the fine print it says they were advertising. It doesnt actually mean they were writing loans. I wonder if this is just a case of an out of date website???
  • John from Geelong | 06 Sep 2012, 04:19 PM Agree 0
    The fine should be relative to the income earned while no licence was held.
  • Confused | 07 Sep 2012, 08:54 AM Agree 0
    Interesting comments, not a heavy enough fine? Why did it take so long for ASIC to finally close the door on the advertising. YES, was this person actually writng the buisness or "touting" for someone wlse. If unlicenced, why were there NOT any questions or clarification sought from the lenders this person was doing business with.
    Same old routine, the BIG GUY, the Bank, the Lender, is happy to take your business, without the fear of retribution.
    Have you noticed over the past few years, as a Broker Crdit Rep, or ACL holder, that we now do ALL the banks work for them, yet they want to pay us less in return. We data imput, we scan and forward ALL documentation, we order online VALUATIONS, or direct to the Valuer. Effectively with the major banks, we have saved them $1,000's each year in saved wages for iopur processing.
    Comments may have digressed from the original issue, but the overall issue is, that Brokers, Credit Rep's etc. are now "pawns" in the big game.
    Welcome to the real world.
  • The Observer | 07 Sep 2012, 12:01 PM Agree 0
    "Patrick", I understand your very relevant point, however, did the broker actually complete a loan application and was paid? If so, who is the credit provider? If no finance was arranged, a $7,500 fine is a very strong incentive to ensure your website reads right. I guess we just don't know the full facts.
Post a reply