The Financial Services and Credit Panel has decided not to take action against two advisers in separate cases, one regarding failing to comply with CPD requirements and the other matter relating to personal advice to retail clients.<\/p>\n
The FSCP\u2019s Outcomes Register notes that a matter was referred to the Sitting Panel regarding Ms J \u201c\u2026.due to concerns that the relevant provider had failed to comply with their continuing professional development requirements (i.e. complete 40 hours of CPD in the relevant areas during the year).\u201d<\/p>\n
The panel says Ms J gave it information and material which satisfied it that there were \u201c\u2026exceptional circumstances that led to the noncompliance, and that the relevant provider understood their CPD obligations.\u201d<\/p>\n
The panel decided not to take action against the relevant provider.<\/p>\n
In a second recent case on the Outcomes Register, regarding Mr Z, the panel says a matter was referred to it \u201c\u2026due to concerns that the relevant provider contravened sections 946B, 961B(1) and 921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to personal advice given to two retail clients between October 2018 and September 2022 inclusive.\u201d<\/p>\n
The panel says it considered submissions from the relevant provider and decided to not to take any action.<\/p>\n
Editors Note: Section 961B of the Corporations Act says the provider must act in the best interests of the client in relation to the advice and Section 921E of the Corporations Act requires financial advisers to comply with the Code of Ethics. Section 946B relates to a separate record of advice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Financial Services and Credit Panel has decided not to take action against two advisers in separate cases, one regarding failing to comply with CPD requirements and the other matter relating to personal advice to retail clients. The FSCP\u2019s Outcomes Register notes that a matter was referred to the Sitting Panel regarding Ms J \u201c\u2026.due […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":73212,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-73204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-compliance-regulation","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73204","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=73204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73204\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/73212"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}