Financial planner gets permanent ban

A financial planner who traversed Westpac, Fortnum and Libertas Financial Planning between 2006 and 2018 has been permanently banned by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

The regulator announced that it had permanently banned financial adviser Ezzat-Daniel Nesseim from providing financial services after finding that he had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, that he was not of good fame or character, and that he was likely to contravene a financial services law.

ASIC said that in the course of an investigation into advice provided by Nesseim, he provided three wholesale client certificates that he had backdated (or caused to be backdated), in the hope that they would cause ASIC to cease or modify its inquiries.

It said that in response to questions regarding these certificates, Nesseim gave false answers to ASIC under oath and that, further, he affirmed that a written statement he provided to ASIC was true, when it contained statements by him that were false.

Commenting on the banning, ASIC Senior Executive Leader, Louise Macaulay said the kind of behaviour referenced by the regulator would not be tolerated by ASIC.

"Providing false evidence to ASIC in an attempt to avoid scrutiny by the regulator is reprehensible and does not uphold the attributes of honesty and integrity required of a financial adviser,” she said.

The ASIC announcement said Nesseim was an Executive Business Financial Adviser at Westpac Banking Corporation from 1 August 2006 to 22 March 2013. He was an authorised representative of Fortnum Private Wealth Pty Ltd from 13 June 2013 to 9 June 2016 and, most recently, he was an authorised representative of Libertas Financial Planning Pty Ltd from 22 June 2016 to 1 March 2018.




Related Content

Author

Comments

Comments

And I believe that Ezzat-Daniel Nesseim was CFP as well. Top standards those.

I am calling BS on ASIC on this.

Were any clients defrauded or detrimental outcomes produced or complaints raised? If it was simply for these compliance documents, and yet clients were in a better position and want him for advice and would have met the SI criteria anyway, it's an insanely harsh penalty of ruining someone's entire career, livelihood and potentially their family's welfare over for want of a better term, an administrative oversight.

Yes he shouldn't have lied under oath etc, but in most other professions, this would not have required an oath be undertaken but simply a smack on the wrist.

ASIC have an agenda to hunt witches and will find them wherever they please, regardless of evidence or crimes committed.If you die during the dunking then they really don't care. Everyone knows this, and I assume in his case he panicked and did something dumb.

If this where a doctor or lawyer who had an administrative error that did not materially detrimentally impact on the client, it would never have gotten that far but would have been raised as an issue, a small fine imposed and that person would get on in their profession having learnt a lesson. Ours it equates to a death sentence.

At least it was not for "no service" so westpac was fine. If he was CFP, then yet again higher education has not stopped the harm. Did ASIC refer the matter to the FPA? I doubt it.

I would like more information Mike please, to see if the punishment fits the alleged crime. I am concerned about ASIC's approach, especially if BID was adhered to for his clients.

Add new comment