ASIC bans former Wickham Securities chairman
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has permanently banned Bradley Thomas Sherwin, a former chairman of collapsed Wickham Securities and founder of Sherwin Financial Planners, from providing financial services.
Sherwin was previously banned from providing financial services by ASIC for two years and seven months in 2013 as a result of an investigation conducted into the affairs of the Sherwin Group of companies and following his bankruptcy.
Additionally, he was charged in 2015 with 33 counts of dishonestly causing detriment totalling nearly $10 million between 2009 and 2012 and one count of dishonestly breaching his duties as a director of Wickham Securities between 2009 and 2012 by the Brisbane Magistrate Court.
Wickham Securities was first placed in administration in December 2012 and then put in liquidation in February 2013 along with a further seven companies associated with Bradley Sherwin, which went into administration at the beginning of 2013 and were subsequently placed in liquidation in February, 2013.
These companies were Sherwin Financial Planners (Sherwin), DIY Superannuation Services (DIY Super), Wickham Capital, Astor Funds, Reacroft, Blue Diamond Investments and SP Property.
Sherwin chose not to make any submissions to ASIC as to why he should not be banned.
He is also due to appear in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 20 June for a committal hearing date.
AUTHOR
Oksana Patron
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
