ASIC has banned an adviser from providing financial services for five years after it found he made recommendations about changes to superannuation and insurance product that increased costs to clients and generated increased fees and commissions for the adviser.
The corporate regulator stated it had banned Stephen Michael Beckton – formerly an authorised representative of Sentinel Private Wealth from September 2013 to October 2016 – after a review of his advice found it did little to benefit his clients .
ASIC claimed that he failed to act in the best interests of his clients by:
- failing to conduct a reasonable investigation of their existing superannuation and insurance products; and
- giving them advice that may have left them in a worse position than if they had not followed his advice;
- failed to provide appropriate advice to his clients;
- failed to accurately disclose the fees associated with his advice; and
- failed to put the interests of his clients ahead of his own, when he knew that there was a conflict of interest.
Beckton’s ban will be recorded on ASIC’s register of financial advisers and he retains the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC’s decision.
In related news, ASIC has also banned a former AMP Financial Planning (AMP FP) adviser from providing financial services for eight years in relation to forged signatures and back-dated documents.
The corporate regulator took action against James Edward McCarthy from South Australia, who was the sole director of McCarthy Financial Solutions after his licensee, AMP FP, notified it of his conduct. McCarthy was an authorised representative of AMP FP from 16 December 2011 to 2 April 2015.
ASIC found that McCarthy created and backdated Statements of Advice and Authority to Proceed documents and forged client signatures for the purpose of complying with an internal AMP Financial Planning audit in March 2015, but did not provide any of the false documents to clients.
McCarthy has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC’s decision.
