Critical questions should be: (1) In relation to " ... advised these clients to acquire, rollover or retain interests in the US Masters Residential Property Fund (URF) and URF-related products", was appropriate due diligence by Dixon Advisory done before advice documents were issued? [2] Given the $357 million in losses, did ASIC form a conjoint investigation with the US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), because the losses occurred in the US Jurisdiction? BTW: ASIC and SEC are members of IOSCO in Switzerland as part of the G20. [3] This calendar year 2023, SEC has done 708 successful prosecutions that brought in US$5 billion in penalties. Was the "... interests in the US Masters Residential Property Fund (URF) and URF-related products" one of the prosecutions by the SEC under its Investment Advisers ACT (1940) in providing misleading or false information and any other forms of illegitimate conduct by its URF managers (product manufacturer) to Dixon Advisory's clients? [5] If the SEC investigation was able to claw back a high portion of in the US Masters Residential Property Fund (URF) and URF-related products (US property market is good), would that save a significant cost impost on a Compensation Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR)?