Financial adviser Jeneve Matai’s ban by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) will remain after his appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was refused.
Matai had been banned on 13 December 2022 for four years.
While AAT refused the stay application on 22 February 2023, no hearing date had been set for the substantive review of ASIC’s decision.
The Gold Coast-based adviser had been an authorised representative and financial adviser of National Advice Solutions from 4 July 2019 to 2 December 2022. He had also been the head of advice for the superannuation team, and assistant training manager at a corporate authorised representative of National Advice Solutions.
In reviewing a sample of advice provided by Matai, ASIC found that he did not act in the best interests of clients, the advice was not appropriate, and he prioritised his interests (or that of his AFS licensee) over the interests of the client.
Matai had provided advice in accordance with what his licensee called a ‘layered advice’ strategy by which the advice was separated into pre-determined topics, irrespective of the client’s personal circumstances, goals or advice needs.
This strategy was a process by which clients were provided with superannuation and insurance advice separately, even though the insurance was held within the superannuation fund.
By using the layered advice strategy, the advice was templated, inappropriately scoped, and Matai failed to identify or consider the relevant circumstances of the clients when preparing the advice, ASIC found.
The regulator also found that though he was not responsible for the design and implementation of the layered advice strategy, as a financial adviser Matai was required to comply with financial services laws, and could not assign his obligations to others.
Additionally, ASIC found Matai “failed to identify issues that a competent person auditing the files would have identified” when auditing the files of other financial advisers on an as-needed basis.
i am sure there were other issues – though I really don’t see a problem with separating insurance from super irrespective of how it is funded. this type of thing has been contemplated for years. KPMG advised DG to separate SMSF from personal investments/insurance. doesn’t seem much different.