Credit provider banned over ex-wife’s activities
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has banned a NSW-based credit provider from providing financial services for four years, in relation to his role in a $3.6 million fraud perpetrated by his former wife.
ASIC reported that Raghwa Nand Prasad, knowingly signed off on seven false loan documents prepared by his ex-wife, Shahi Kanta Prasad.
"Mr Prasad contravened credit legislation and financial services laws, and was involved in Ms Prasad's contravention of credit legislation and financial services laws," the regulator said.
"ASIC made these findings on the basis that, in respect to the seven loan applications which involved false documents created by Ms Prasad, Mr Prasad, among other things:
- was familiar with his clients' financial situation, having acted as their tax agent;
- signed off on applications containing false documents without querying whether the application accurately represented his clients' financial situation;
- knew the application document were false; and
- directed or allowed Ms Prasad to send the application containing the false documents to the lender."
Ms Prasad was banned from providing financial services for 10 years, in May, having pleaded guilty to four charges of fraud after an investigation by the corporate regulator, last year.
She also pleaded guilty to generating 41 fake documents and instruments and using them to gain a financial upper hand for her employer through commissions.
AUTHOR
Nicholas O'Donoghue
Recommended for you
With wealth management M&A appetite only growing stronger, Business Health has outlined the major considerations for buyers and sellers to prevent unintended misalignment between the parties.
Industry body SIAA has said the falling number of financial advisers in Australia is a key issue impacting the attractiveness and investor participation of both public and private markets.
As advisers risk losing two-thirds of FUA during the $3.5 trillion wealth transfer, two co-founders underscore why fostering trust with the next generation is vital to retaining intergenerational wealth.
As advisers seek greater insights into FSCP determinations, what are the various options considered by the panel and can a decision be appealed?
