Melbourne AFSL receives interim orders from Federal Court
ASIC has obtained interim orders from the Federal Court to freeze the assets of an advice licensee.
The interim orders freeze the assets of financial advice licensee United Global Capital Pty Ltd (UGC) and related property investment company Global Capital Property Fund Limited (GCPF), an authorised representative of UGC since 2020.
Melbourne-based UGC describes itself as offering private wealth advice, securities, real estate opportunities, asset management and self-managed superannuation funds.
ASIC sought the orders to protect investor funds while an investigation is continuing.
On 20 June, Justice O’Callaghan ordered that UGC and GCPF be restrained from:
- removing property from Australia,
- selling, charging, mortgaging, dealing with or disposing of property,
- incurring new liabilities, or
- withdrawing, transferring, disposing of, or dealing with money held in bank accounts or with a financial institution (subject to limited exceptions).
At a subsequent hearing on 25 June, the Federal Court extended the time for compliance with some of the disclosure orders that had been made and adjourned the matter for further hearing at 10:15am on 11 July 2024.
AUTHOR
Laura Dew
Recommended for you
ASIC has cancelled the AFSL of an advice firm associated with Shield and First Guardian collapses, and permanently banned its responsible manager.
In the run-up to heavy losses expected at the end of the financial year, June has already reported consecutive weeks of adviser losses.
ASIC has banned a former NSW adviser from providing advice for 10 years for investing at least $14.8 million into a cryptocurrency-based scam.
ASIC has sent warning notices to social media finfluencers who it suspects are providing unlicensed financial advice to Australians as part of a global crackdown by international regulators.
There should be a release of additional information regarding the reasons ASIC has taken action against UGC. As a past client of UGC I think this information should be made available. The fact that neither ASIC nor the administrator appointed by ASIC will respond to requests for this information suggests not all is above board. For ASIC to create a situation where hundreds of clients are left without administration of their SMSF without any warning demonstrates ASIC does not consider the interests of the public.