ASIC Enforcement Wrap: November 2025

17 December 2025

Dan Mackay, Director, and Hayley Civitarese and Allegra Hird, Law Clerks

‍

Key November Takeaways:

• ASIC continues its regulatory enforcement against the Shield Master Fund by commencing proceedings against MWL Financial Services and Interprac Financial Planning for their alleged advice failures and SQM Research for allegedly misleading reports
• Five companies had their Australian Financial Services Licences (AFSL) suspended or cancelled 
• Infringement notices were issued to four companies for misleading statements about investments or failing to lodge financial reports

‍

Spotlight – United Super ordered to pay significant penalties for failings in handling death benefits and total and permanent disability claims

The Federal Court has ordered United Super — the trustee of Cbus — to pay a civil penalty of $23.5 million for serious failings in handling insurance claims, including death benefits and total and permanent disability (TPD) claims. The Court action stems from admissions by Cbus that it caused unreasonable and systemic delays in processing these claims. More than 7,000 members and claimants were adversely affected  with many experiencing prolonged delays while grieving a death or coping with a life-changing disability. The penalty exceeds United Super’s total 2024 revenue (quoted at around $18.5 million), highlighting the severity of the violations. In addition to the Court-imposed fine, Cbus has committed to a remediation program valued at about $32 million, aimed at compensating roughly 7,402 affected claimants and beneficiaries for lost earnings, wrongly charged fees, and other harms. 

The Court found that between March and May 2023, a substantial proportion of pending claims had sat unresolved for over a year: between 48 %–56 % of death-benefit claims and 38%–43% of TPD claims were open for more than 365 days. The delays stemmed in part from Cbus outsourcing its claims processing to a third-party administrator, Australian Administration Services Pty Limited (AAS). Despite repeated warnings and internal reports that AAS was failing to meet service-level standards, United Super failed to properly oversee and manage the administrator or monitor the backlog effectively. 

Moreover, the Court found a breach of reporting obligations: United Super did not report the processing failures to ASIC in a timely manner as required. Regulatory reports were due by March and July 2023, yet were not submitted until August 2023, only after public outcry triggered by media coverage. 

In imposing the penalty, Justice David O'Callaghan emphasised that delays in paying out insurance-benefit claims “can have serious and unacceptable consequences” for members and their families. He also noted that, as one of Australia’s largest super funds, Cbus should have maintained robust systems to uphold its obligations under law. 

Cbus has since publicly apologised and said the penalty will be paid from reserves (not from increasing member fees), and asserted that “almost all” affected members have now been compensated. The fund is also required to contribute $500,000 towards ASIC’s legal costs and submit to a compliance program, including expert review of its internal systems and processes. 

ASIC’s Deputy Chair Sarah Court stressed that this outcome serves as a stark warning to the entire superannuation sector: trustees cannot outsource their obligations and neglect timely, fair, and efficient claims handling. She added that the case underscores ASIC’s increased regulatory scrutiny over member-services failures in super funds — especially regarding sensitive insurance claims. 

‍

November in Summary – Enforcement Actions and Outcomes

Civil Action

High Court

The High Court refused special leave in the Cigno litigation:

• The High Court dismissed an application for special leave to appeal by Mark Swanepoel, a director of Cigno Australia, and Brenton Harrison, a director of BSF Solutions. Mr Swanepoel and Mr Harrison sought special leave to appeal a decision of the Full Federal Court by Justice Jackman which found that they were both involved in contraventions concerning unlicensed credit activity and charging consumers prohibited fees. The matter will return to Justice Jackman on 7 April 2026 for a hearing on penalty.

‍

Civil Proceedings

ASIC commenced six civil proceedings in the Federal Court:

• ASIC commenced civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court against AVZ Minerals Limited (AVZ), a mineral exploration company in Western Australia, and two of its directors, Nigel Ferguson and Graeme Johnston, for failing to disclose critical marketing information. ASIC alleges that AVZ breached continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by failing to inform investors about an escalating legal dispute in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the acquisition of shares in a lithium project. Additionally, ASIC alleges that Mr Ferguson and Mr Johnston breached their director’s duties by authorising Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) announcements that were false or misleading or omitted information that rendered them misleading.
• ASIC has sought leave to commence proceedings against MWL Financial Services (MWL), its former director Nicholas Maikousis and Imperial Capital Group Australia (Imperial). ASIC alleges that MWL provided inappropriate advice to clients when recommending they invest their superannuation into the Shield Master Fund (Shield). Between May 2022 and February 2024, 9 MWL representatives advised approximately 556 clients to invest a total of $114 million of their superannuation into Shield. In doing so, MWL failed to ensure the best interest of clients, instead providing dishonest advice with no system in place to manage conflicts of interest. Nicholas Maikousis, the director of MWL, is implicated in all of his companies’ alleged contraventions of its general licensee obligations and obligations to act in the best interest of clients. Acting as lead generator, Imperial made misleading representations to prospective clients regarding the benefits, quality and security of MWL’s financial services, and as such is implicated in MWL’s alleged contraventions. Imperial received approximately $12.8 million from entities associated with Shield for client referrals and promotion of the superannuation fund.  The project allegedly involved Imperial referring prospective clients to MWL for what Imperial represented would be tailored financial advice, but which instead put clients into the pre-selected Shield investment that was not in their best interest.  
• ASIC is suing SQM Research Pty Ltd (SQM Research) for alleged misleading representations in relation to the Shield Master Fund (Shield). Between October 2021 and October 2022, SQM Research published reports that rated Shield as favourable, but failed to consider the inconsistencies in information it received when assessing Shield. The SQM Research reports were provided to financial advisors who recommended Shield to approximately 5,800 of their clients. The civil penalty proceedings against SQM Research are the first the regulator have brought against a research house.
• ASIC is suing Interprac over its involvement with Shield and First Guardian Master Funds. ASIC is alleging that by allowing its former authorised representatives Venture Egg and Rhyss Reilly Pty Ltd to advise approximately 6,843 clients to invest their superannuation into Shield and First Guardian, Interprac failed to meet its obligations as an AFSL holder. ASIC alleges that Interprac failed to properly vet or monitor the financial products it approved and did not adequately respond to major red flags, client complaints, or compliance breaches. It also claims Interprac allowed poor practices like negative consent investments and lead-generator misuse, while taking little meaningful action despite serious issues being repeatedly identified. ASIC is seeking, civil penalties, declarations and orders to restrain Interprac from carrying on a financial services business.
• ASIC is suing former Electro Optic Systems Holdings Limited (EOS) CEO and director Ben Greene for alleged breach of director’s duties, alleging he failed to properly handle a major downgrade in the company’s 2022 revenue guidance. In mid-2022, EOS told the market it expected revenues of at least $212.3 million, but by 25 July it allegedly knew revenue would be significantly lower. Despite that, Greene reportedly agreed with board decisions to delay disclosure. The company only publicly corrected its guidance 14 weeks later in late October 2022. ASIC is seeking civil penalties, disqualification orders, and formal declarations against Greene. Meanwhile EOS has admitted its own breach and faces a proposed $4 million penalty.
• ASIC has initiated contempt proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against husband and wife David McWilliams and Laura Fullarton for allegedly breaching freezing orders. The court had previously frozen their bank and crypto accounts as part of a larger case involving their former company, ALAMMC Group, to preserve assets while investors’ funds were being scrutinised. ASIC claims the couple moved hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the frozen accounts, exceeded the permitted living-expenses allowance, failed to disclose interests in racehorses, crypto and other accounts, diverted race-horse prize money to undisclosed accounts, and sold a stake in a racehorse after the freeze. For Fullarton, ASIC alleges withdrawals of at least $245,159 from frozen accounts, exceeding allowable limits.

‍

Criminal Action

Criminal Charges

Two individuals were charged with criminal offences:

• On 21 November, Brent Young of Queensland appeared before the Brisbane Magistrates Court charged with one count of managing a corporation whilst disqualified and one count of fraud. ASIC alleges that between 30 September 2020 and 30 June 2023, Mr Young, the then shadow director of HWT Group Australia Pty Ltd (HWT Group), lodged over $8.3 million dollars’ worth of fraudulent invoices, primarily for Bunnings Warehouse, with a Queensland based finance provider as part of a debt factoring agreement. At the time of the offences, Mr Young was bankrupt and thus disqualified from managing corporations.
• Kristian John Convery of Melbourne has been charged after allegedly acting as an SMSF auditor while permanently disqualified, and for falsifying documents. ASIC alleges Convery, disqualified since 15 May 2024, continued auditing for four tax agents and 56 entities between June 2024 and January 2025. Between July 2024 and January 2025, he reportedly created a false letter and 47 fake audit reports. The case is being prosecuted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

‍

Guilty Pleas

One individual pleaded guilty:

• David Fairfull, the former Chief Executive Officer of Metigy, pleaded guilty to one count of making false and misleading statements and one count of dishonestly using his position as a director to gain an advantage. Mr Fairfull provided false information about Metigy’s revenue and income to potential investors contrary to s 1041E(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. Additionally, he dishonestly used his position as a director to lend $7.7 million to finance the purchase of real estate for himself contrary to s 184(2) of the Corporations Act 2001.

‍

Sentencing

Three individuals were sentenced:

• Krishnakumar Sitaram Agrawal, the director of Mansa Group, has been sentenced by the District Court of New South Wales to a total effective sentence of  four years and 10 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and three months. For the offence of using false documents to obtain a financial advantage contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Mr Agrawal was sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment. For the offence of dishonestly using his position as a director with the intention to gain an advantage contrary to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Mr Agrawal was sentenced to three years and ten months imprisonment. Between 2017 and 2023, he removed directors and shareholders of Mansa Group corporations without their knowledge. He then obtained loans totalling over $20 million from third party lenders also using false documents, where he used the loans for other corporations he controlled.
• Phillip Bird and Daniel Holmes, directors of Sheffield Insurance Pty Ltd (Sheffield) were convicted and fined after they pleaded guilty to failing to lodge the required financial statements and auditors’ reports for each year between 2019 and 2023. They were fined $15,000 each and ordered to pay court costs following convictions on two counts: one for not lodging profit and loss statements and balance sheets, and another for not lodging auditors’ reports. ASIC noted that as an Australian financial services licensee, Sheffield was required to submit those reports within three months of each financial year-end.

‍

Administrative Action

Bans

One individual was banned by ASIC from providing financial services:

• Andrew John Spira, the former director of private-lending firms Skyecap Pty Ltd and Pineapple Funding Pty Ltd, has been permanently banned from operating in the financial services and credit industries. Spira was convicted in November 2023 after a Darwin court found he had dishonestly obtained financial advantage by deception, following offences including attempting to leave Australia using a false passport and using stolen credit card details. As a result, he is barred from providing financial services or credit activities, from controlling or managing any entity that operates in those sectors or performing any related function. The ban took effect on 19 November 2025. 

Director Disqualifications

ASIC disqualified one individual from managing corporations:

• ASIC has disqualified Anthony Stephen Prior from managing corporations for five years until 5 November 2030. Between February 2012 and November 2023, Mr Prior was the director of three companies which now owe a total of $5,764,098 to unsecured creditors, including the Australian Taxation Office and Workers Compensation Nominal Insurers. ASIC found that Mr Prior failed to meet his obligations by failing to exercise due care and diligence, improperly used his position to cause detriment to other companies, failed to maintain adequate company financial records, and failed to ensure the companies did not trade while insolvent.

Licence Suspension or Cancellation

Five companies had their Australian financial services licence (AFSL) suspended or cancelled:

• Ricard Securities Pty Ltd (Ricard) has had its AFSL cancelled by ASIC effective 28 October 2025. Ricard failed to pay its industry levies and failed to meet its statutory audit and financial reporting lodgement obligations. ASIC will allow Ricard to provide financial services until 24 December 2025 that are reasonably necessary or incidental to the winding up and day to day operations of any unregistered managed investment scheme for which it was the trustee.
• Surety Compliance Limited (Surety) has had its AFSL suspended by ASIC until 27 October 2026. ASIC found that Surety failed to meet minimum financial requirements and hold professional indemnity insurance. Surety is allowed to continue to provide financial services that are necessary for or incidental to the winding up of its Private Investment Fund, of which it is the responsible entity.
• Centurion Capital Limited (Centurion) has had its AFSL suspended by ASIC until 21 April 2026. ASIC found that Centurion failed to meet its statutory audit and financial reporting obligations for itself and the BTR Real Estate Investment Fund for the financial years ending 2022, 2023, and 2024. If Centurion fails to rectify the breaches, ASIC may take further action at the end of the suspension period.
• Ivy League Capital Pty Ltd (Ivy) has had its AFSL cancelled by ASIC effective 17 November 2025. ASIC found that Ivy failed to lodge audited financial reports for the year ended 2022 and all subsequent years. It also failed to maintain membership with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.
• Focused Financial Advice Pty Ltd (FFA) has had its AFSL cancelled until 19 December 2025 after it failed to notify ASIC or apply for a change of licence variation following the company’s change of ownership in 2023.  Consequently, FFA provided financial services for over two years without the mandatory key-person oversight, undermining the competence and compliance safeguards intended under the licence. 

‍

Infringement Notices

ASIC issued five infringement notices to four companies:

• Prime Super Pty Ltd paid an infringement notice worth $18,780 on 31 October 2025 issued by ASIC, where ASIC alleged it made misleading statements about certain investments. Prime Super had publicly stated in its 2023 annual report that manufacturers of tobacco products were entirely excluded from the Prime Super Superannuation Fund (Fund). However, the Fund indirectly invested in companies involved in tobacco manufacturing, such as British American Tobacco PLC. Prime Super reported the incident to ASIC and no longer states that it entirely excludes investments in tobacco.
• H.E.S.T. Australia Ltd (HESTA), the trustee for the HESTA superfund, paid two infringement notices totalling $37,560 on 3 November 2025 issued by ASIC for alleged misleading statements about certain investments. HESTA placed paid advertisements on Google and Bing which stated that HESTA was committed to remove all investment in carbon emissions by 2050. However, HESTA’s target was to achieve net zero carbon emissions for its investments by 2050. This is different to removing all carbon investments as net zero can be achieved by offsetting. HESTA reported the incident to ASIC.
• Two companies in the GFG Alliance, Liberty Infrabuild Limited and its parent Liberty Holdings Australia Pty Ltd, have paid infringement notices totalling $375,600 for alleged failure to lodge their audited financial reports for the year ending 30 June 2024 by the 31 October 2024 deadline. Although their reports were eventually submitted (Liberty Infrabuild in May 2025 and Liberty Holdings in September 2025), ASIC noted that delayed or modified reports erode transparency and stakeholder confidence. ASIC’s Deputy Chair said that financial-reporting misconduct will be a regulatory enforcement priority in 2026.

‍

Interim Stop Orders

ASIC issued one interim stop order:

• ASIC has issued an interim stop order preventing City Finance Lending Pty Ltd (City Finance Lending) from issuing its small-amount credit contracts (SACCs) to retail customers because ASIC considered its Target Market Determination (TMD) was deficient. ASIC found the TMD failed to clearly define what qualifies as an “acceptable” source of income, what counts as an inappropriate purpose for borrowing, and which borrowers should be excluded due to likely inability to repay. Additionally, ASIC was concerned the TMD lacked adequate distribution conditions and guidelines for verifying a borrower’s financial capacity before issuing a loan, raising the risk that SACCs could be provided to unsuitable or vulnerable borrowers. The stop order, meant to protect consumers from potentially unsuitable credit products, was set for an initial 21-day period unless revoked earlier.

‍

Other Enforcement Actions: 

• ASIC has imposed additional conditions on Learn To Trade Pty Ltd (LTT) following alleged repeated failures to meet its financial reporting and compliance obligations under its Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). LTT, which provides coaching in margin foreign‑exchange (forex) and contract-for-difference (CFD) trading, failed to lodge annual financial statements and auditors’ reports for the years ending December 2023 and December 2024, and did not notify ASIC when appointing a new auditor. ASIC’s response requires LTT to engage an independent compliance consultant to review its systems and procedures, including financial reporting, breach identification, and adherence to financial services laws. The consultant must submit two reports to ASIC assessing whether LTT’s compliance framework is adequate. 

‍

If any of the above is relevant to you or you want to know more, please feel free to get in touch.

‍

The contents of this article do not constitute legal advice and it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.  It is designed and intended as general information in summary form, current at the time of publication, for general informational purposes only.  You should seek legal advice or other professional advice in relation to any particular legal matters you or your organisation may have.

‍