Mackay Chapman October 2026 ASIC Update

In this month’s ASIC update:

• ASIC extends market relief for exchange-traded derivatives and securities;
• ASIC pursues a lead generation business over alleged misleading comparison claims;
• ASIC secures asset preservation orders in relation to the Star Investment Group Australia scheme;
• CADB suspends former PKF Brisbane auditor Cameron Bradley;
• Former Big Un CEO Richard Evans sentenced for communicating inside information;
• Federal Court finds Choosi misled consumers about its insurance comparison services; and
• CashnGo ordered to pay $3.5 million over unfair contract terms.

ASIC extends market relief for exchange-traded derivatives and securities

ASIC has continued four forms of regulatory relief affecting exchange-traded derivatives and securities markets for a further five years.

Following consultation, ASIC has remade three legislative instruments and extended a fourth.

The relief covers disclosure for certain exchange-traded derivatives, trans-Tasman securities settlement, transfers of foreign securities and securities lending arrangements.

ASIC says the measures support the efficient operation of the markets and reduce unnecessary administrative work for participants.

Some of the instruments have been updated to clarify requirements, modernise references and simplify definitions. The substantive relief, however, remains unchanged.

For market participants relying on these instruments, the extension provides another five years of certainty under the existing regulatory settings.

ASIC brings action against lead generation business over alleged comparison claims

ASIC has commenced Federal Court proceedings against Clark Family Pty Ltd, alleging the business misled consumers about the operation of up to 70 financial services, loan and insurance websites, such as financialservicesonline.com.au and compare-life-insurance.com.au.

ASIC alleges that between September 2020 and September 2026, the websites told consumers they could compare rates, quotes and options from multiple providers. They also represented that consumers could receive recommendations tailored to their needs.

According to ASIC, that was not how the service operated.

ASIC says Clark Family did not compare financial products or provide tailored recommendations. Instead, consumer enquiries were sold through an internal bidding process. The highest bidding broker received the lead.

ASIC alleges these representations were false or misleading. It is seeking declarations, pecuniary penalties, an adverse publicity order and injunctions.

The case is a useful reminder for businesses offering comparison or matching services. Marketing needs to reflect what the service actually does. Where commercial arrangements determine which provider receives an enquiry, those arrangements should not be inconsistent with the representations made to consumers.

ASIC takes action over Star Investment Group Australia scheme

ASIC has secured interim asset preservation and travel restraint orders against Star Investment Group Australia Pty Ltd, Gondal Holdings Pty Ltd and their director, Ijaz Ahmad.

ASIC’s investigation concerns an investment scheme operated by Star Investment Group Australia and associated with the Lake Narracan Resort development in Victoria.

The Federal Court found there were reasonable grounds to suspect contraventions. It also found interim orders were necessary to protect investors while ASIC’s investigation continues.

The orders restrict the companies and Mr Ahmad from dealing with or dissipating assets, subject to limited exceptions. They also require information about assets and liabilities to be provided.

These are interim protective orders, not final findings of wrongdoing.

Mr Ahmad had not had an opportunity to respond to ASIC’s application when the initial orders were made. The proceeding is currently listed for a further hearing on 6 October 2026.

The action is another example of ASIC moving early where it considers investor funds may be at risk. Asset preservation orders can be sought while an investigation is still underway.

CADB suspends former PKF Brisbane auditor over managed investment scheme audits

The Companies Auditors Disciplinary Board has suspended the registration of former PKF Brisbane auditor Cameron Bradley until 30 June 2028.

The decision followed an ASIC investigation into Mr Bradley’s conduct in the audits of three managed investment schemes for the financial year ended 30 June 2023.

The schemes sat at the top of a complex, multi-tiered investment structure. Their underlying assets were ultimately properties used as disability accommodation under the NDIS.

Financial assets represented more than 90% of the schemes’ total assets.

The CADB found that Mr Bradley failed to properly and adequately perform his audit duties. That included failures to exercise sufficient professional scepticism and judgement, perform appropriate audit procedures, obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence and prepare adequate audit documentation.

The responsible entity for the schemes, Australian Fiduciaries Limited, is now in liquidation. ASIC says around 600 Australian retail investors invested approximately $160 million in managed investment schemes offered by Australian Fiduciaries, predominantly through SMSFs.

The decision is particularly relevant to audits involving complex investment structures and asset valuations. It also reflects ASIC’s continued focus on audit quality in managed investment schemes and private markets.

Former Big Un CEO sentenced for communicating inside information

Former Big Un Limited CEO Richard Evans, also known as Richard Evertz, has been convicted and sentenced for communicating inside information.

Mr Evans was sentenced to one year and nine months’ imprisonment, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order. He was also ordered to complete 400 hours of community service.

His conviction automatically disqualifies him from managing corporations for five years.

Mr Evans pleaded guilty in April to sharing sensitive information about a funding arrangement and customer onboarding with a shareholder in January 2017.

The offence concerned circumstances where he ought reasonably to have known the shareholder would be likely to trade in Big Un shares and options.

Big Un later became one of the higher-profile ASX technology collapses of 2018 and is now in liquidation.

ASIC has made strengthening the investigation and prosecution of insider trading one of its 2026 enforcement priorities. It has also established a dedicated insider trading team.

The case is a reminder that insider trading laws are not limited to trading personally on confidential information. Communicating inside information to another person can also amount to an offence where the statutory requirements are met.

Federal Court finds Choosi misled consumers about insurance comparisons

The Federal Court has found Choosi Pty Ltd misled consumers about the breadth of its funeral and life insurance comparison services.

The Court found Choosi made representations that suggested it compared products from a range of insurers.

In practice, the panel was much narrower.

From July 2019, Choosi’s funeral insurance comparison involved policies issued by only one insurer, Hannover Life Re of Australasia.

Its life insurance service compared Hannover policies and, for a period, a single Swiss Re policy. From July 2023, all of the life insurance policies compared were issued by Hannover.

All of the policies were distributed by Greenstone Financial Services, a company associated with Choosi.

The Court found this gave consumers the false impression that Choosi compared policies from a broader range of insurers than it actually did.

The matter will return to Court for consideration of penalties and other relief.

The decision shows why comparison services need to be clear about the breadth of the market they actually cover. Describing a service as offering comparison or choice can create regulatory risk where the underlying product panel is much narrower than consumers would reasonably expect.

CashnGo ordered to pay $3.5 million over unfair contract terms

The Federal Court has ordered Venture 5 Group Pty Ltd, trading as CashnGo, to pay a $3.5 million penalty over its use of and reliance on unfair terms in more than 47,000 small amount credit contracts.

CashnGo admitted that some terms allowed its automated systems to monitor a consumer’s bank account after a missed repayment.

The system could then repeatedly attempt withdrawals when funds became available.

Consumers were not given advance notice of the timing, frequency or amount of those withdrawals. They were also unable to opt out of the practice.

CashnGo separately admitted that limitation of liability and indemnity provisions in its contracts were unfair.

It also failed to provide legally compliant default notices on 67,545 occasions, affecting more than 53,000 consumers.

Between April 2022 and May 2025, CashnGo entered into more than 201,000 small amount credit contracts with more than 85,000 consumers that contained unfair terms.

The decision is significant because the issue went beyond the wording of the contracts. CashnGo’s automated systems and debt collection practices were also central to the conduct considered by the Court.

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

‍