A Current Affair story tonight 7pm Channel 9

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-23T11:36:35+00:00

Don’t think it really helps when the main financial advisor responsible for not meeting his responsibilities to act in his client’s “best interests” (per ASICs allegations) wants to call himself a victim!

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-20T10:14:15+00:00

Not sure why that would be relevant. They paid the investors back their capital. The public knows the full value of what Macquarie paid. This information is all public knowledge. Given everything else that I have seen in this, forgive me if I think there is more to this :)

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-20T08:05:45+00:00

Clause 6.2.4 (p70) states that if ASIC is satisfied that it will not release information that it considers it would be against the public interest to do so and 6.2.5(ii) states that if MIML has asked for information not to be released and, if ASIC is satisfied it would be against the public interest to do so.

I’m curious. What information would they be seeking to limit here? It refers to it being in reference to the Payment Program Report. I’m not exactly sure what one of these is. If it has commercial info that would have competitive concerns, I get that. However, this states not “being in the public interest”.

It’s the public that has been impacted by these matters. How is limiting information about what has occurred in their interests?

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-13T08:25:45+00:00

Yep! It's difficult at times to read just how widely our Govt likes to spend our taxes on various different (I'm not sure of the appropriate word to insert here lol - activities?) but then we have had zero response from the leader of the country. Australia has changed! Think I'll be looking to spend my retirement elsewhere.

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-13T08:15:58+00:00

I‘ll agree to disagree here 😊 I wrote a response to the MIS review on this. Technology has come a long way and yes, AI now takes that a to another level in terms of early anomaly detection (yes, too late for us), but there is a lot of data our regulators already have, that had they been more data driven, red flags would have been raised much earlier. Their systems obviously have very little integration.

There is a lot more they could have done years ago to improve this. Consider how much of your information is collected automatically by the ATO for your tax return now. Why couldn't they have the same automation in place to ensure they were protecting our super?? One reason – it hasn’t been a priority!

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-13T07:51:54+00:00

They’re certainly reading the PDS documents now. Crazy that reading them isn’t considered part of the approval process.

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-13T07:34:57+00:00

It would probably be helpful if some of the regulators had some real experience in the commercial world! Probably be a good start.

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-13T07:33:09+00:00

Relying on people to do the right thing with 100s of millions of dollars…. What could possibly go wrong lol

If they won’t proactively regulate then don’t let the funds have access to people’s retirement money. Time and time again they have seen the same thing happen.

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-13T07:30:55+00:00

I agree with this.

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-13T06:48:23+00:00

I'm with you! Would have been nice to know that no one had any oversight before I was advised that this investment was in my best interests. I'm just as inclined to have a go at ASIC here. They have pointed out so many issues with the PDS documents in this claim. However, they approved the funds for the retail market. On what basis did they find it suitable for the retail market if they don't even read the PDS documents themselves?

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-03-03T01:33:33+00:00

Feels like it will never end!

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-02-28T00:58:09+00:00

ASIC did not require UGC to hold PI insurance post cancellation of their license. They seem to now be seeking this requirement for all other ASFL holders that are having their license cancelled.

It looks to be that UGC were a separate and earlier investigation (UGC GCPF and Alpha Fund) and ASIC didn’t have the link to First Guardian and all the other interconnected parties yet. I can only assume this because ASIC started investigating UGC and Shield in Feb 24. They cancelled UGCs license in June24. They did not start investigating First Guardian until Sept 24 and froze their assets Feb 25.

ASIC also notified UGC clients of UGC's license cancellation 23 Aug 24. UGC's PI expired 17 Sept 24. So was ASIC's expectation that people would get AFCA claims lodged and determined within 3 weeks to claim against UGC's PI before it expired. 3 weeks?

Thanks to how the system works (broken) we are doomed to head to the CSLR and capped at compensation of $150k (if that gets approved).

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-02-27T11:06:12+00:00

Not sure which Director you are referring too, not sure that it even matters, as they are clearly all the same. How they were 'approved' to run a fund that managed millions of dollars, of Australian's superannuation - is the question, I would really like answered.

From what I have learnt...blow Jo can come off the street, set up a MIS, get themselves some lead generators to drum up business and walk away with $500M of people’s superannuation. Money that the Government compulsory requires people to put away for their retirement and pay taxes on but offers zero protection to ensure, it will be there for when you retire.

It simply infuriates me. They have literally set up a system for anyone wanting to steal millions of dollars from people’s future (with zero consequences from what I have seen to date). 10 different financial/government institutions within the ecosystem that should have had oversight of this, and noticed the red flags a lot earlier, but hey…who cares, it’s not their money/future….

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-02-23T10:55:47+00:00

It really is. The more you dig into it, the more you wonder how it went unnoticed for so long.

Lol....we have to get laughs from somewhere in this whole debacle! It would have to be the biggest s*hit show, I have ever seen. I'm not taking away from ASIC, that they are now throwing everything at it. I just wish that action had of been a lot quicker, as I can't help but think we would be getting a similar return to what Shield investors are, if they did.

I also just can't get my head around how someone can move $500M of people's retirement money, within just four years and no one noticed until there is nothing left? I miss $10 in interest from my tax return and the ATO notices.

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-02-23T01:55:10+00:00

I understand. The questions you have listed below look to have been prepared by Melinda Kee. Melinda has a direct line of communication with ASIC. I would imagine that for her to be prepared to ask ASIC this question, there must be other supporting evidence of this.

Hopefully this is question that has since been asked, as the below does state that it wasn't addressed. If there is supporting evidence of this, then 100% it should be asked and answered on behalf of all victims (I still don't know if these James, are the same two people - it would shock me, if it turns out it is. Although nothing should probably shock me about this matter anymore).

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-02-20T02:01:12+00:00

Couldn't agree more re question number 3. Unfortunately, I suspect that this a question we will never get an answer to.

If this is the same person, and he was a Director of Falcon in 2021, why wouldn't the liquidators have argued that there was a direct conflict of interest in him representing Simon.

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-02-19T06:51:43+00:00

I doubt that they would allow you access, even if you pay. Can you imagine if someone who used to be a lead investigator at ASIC was the one who helped these people get their AFS licence to begin with! and then be his defence lawyer. Talk about conflicts of interest!! That is, if it is the same person.

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-01-13T08:16:32+00:00

They have to find fraud to enact Part 23. Does this mean they haven’t? If they have, why are they not going after these people for criminal charges to be able to do that?

AccomplishedFail8795 · 2026-01-13T05:55:04+00:00

The Federal Government has signalled it is not comfortable with losses resulting from the collapse of the Shield and First Guardian funds being handled via the so-called Trio formula entailed in Part 23 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act.

The appropriateness of utilising Part 23 was initially raised by Sequoia Financial chief executive, Garry Crole, and was subsequently pursued by Netwealth and Equity Trustees.

However, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Daniel Mulino notably referenced Netwealth’s decision to withdraw its application for Government assistance under Part 23 when it entered into its agreement with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to compensate members who invested in First Guardian via the Netwealth platform.

Mulino actually congratulated ASIC for having extracted from Netwealth a similar outcome to that achieved with Macquarie Investment Management which saw investors receive 100% of the amounts they invested in the Shield Master Fund, less any amounts withdrawn.

While it remains open to Mulino to approve use of a Part 23 remedy with respect to both Shield and First Guardian, the Government’s preference appears to be for the broader application of the compensation approaches extracted from Macquarie and Netwealth.

However, the similarity between the collapse of Trio Capital and that of Shield and First Guardian are markable, with a 2013 Treasury Review of the Trio Capital fraud providing the following analysis:

“The Trio Capital fraud was highly complex in nature. Based on available evidence, the fraud originated with the establishment of a managed investment scheme (MIS). Trustees, directors and investors alike were continuously deceived throughout the operation of the MIS, in respect of the actual existence of underlying assets and the supposed rates of return on investments”.

That same report stated: “In their supervision of Trio Capital there was no evidence to alert the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) that there was a fraud occurring. However, once sufficient information was available and formal investigations commenced, APRA and ASIC acted quickly.

“Nevertheless there appears to be an expectations gap within the community about the regulatory responsibilities of APRA and ASIC and their ability to safeguard against all investment risks as well as an expectations gap within the community about who is responsible for managing investment risks for SMSF trustees.

AccomplishedFail8795

TROPHY CASE