Sydney AFSL sees licence cancellation
AFSLs are being reminded to take prompt action once a licence is granted as ASIC makes its latest licence cancellation of a Sydney firm.
The licence of Sug Ou Jeung, based in Lidcombe, Sydney, was cancelled on 3 June 2024.
ASIC said this was because ASIC became aware that Sug Ou Jeung had never used the licence and had not provided financial services under the licence within six months of the licence having been granted.
It reminded licence holders to act promptly to provide a financial service covered by their licence within six months of the licence being approved.
“Under the Corporations Act, ASIC may cancel an AFS licence held by an individual, by giving written notice to the individual, if the individual does not provide a financial service covered by the licence before the end of six months after the licence is granted.”
Unlike other cases, it was not stated that they had a right to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of ASIC’s decision.
This is the sixth action taken against a Sydney firm since the start of the year. Last week, Burwood-based firm Aussie Wealth Super saw its licence cancelled after the corporate regulator received notification that liquidators had been appointed on 14 March 2024.
ASIC said the terms of the licence cancellation state that Aussie Wealth Super continues to be in effect as though the cancellation had not happened until 3 June 2025. This is for the purpose of having a dispute resolution system and concerning arrangements for compensation.
AUTHOR
Laura Dew
Recommended for you
With AMP advisers moving to Entireti and Insignia being the subject of a private equity bidding war, how can deals be navigated to ensure minimal stress and uncertainty for staff and advisers?
There are seven key mistakes that financial advice businesses need to steer clear of in 2025 to avoid hindering their business growth and profitability, according to Adviser Ratings.
The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would affect financial advisers.
While advisers are increasingly eyeing private markets and alternative investments, two reports have underlined the lack of investor understanding that persists among both advisers and clients.
