Representatives providing personal advice to clients when not licensed to do so; and
Representatives making representations to clients that were likely to mislead, including about the level of risk clients’ funds were exposed to and expected profits.
Following this, the regulator also found that Martin was not adequately trained or competent and was not a fit and proper person to provide financial services.
According to the ASIC, the financial products issued by Union Standard were high risk financial products, with features that may not be understood or appreciated by retail clients.
Martin was the responsible manager of Union Standard from December 2014 to September 2019 and was a director from February 2019. Since 20 September, 2018, Martin was also the sole director of TradeFred.
Director of derivatives issuer cops double ban By Reporter 01 June 2021
ASIC has banned the former director of an over the counter derivatives issuer from financial services and from managing corporations as a result of his serious lack of regard for compliance.
In a statement, the regulator said it had banned John Martin, a director and former responsible manager of liquidated firm Union Standard International Group, from providing financial services for 10 years and from managing corporations for five years. ASIC found Mr Martin’s lack of understanding or regard for compliance was so serious it justified the making of significant banning and disqualification orders, the regulator said.
ASIC takes action against Union Standard International Group and its former corporate authorised representatives miragenews.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from miragenews.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Union Standard was alleged to have failed to comply with its obligation to do all things necessary to ensure financial services covered by its licence were provided efficiently, honestly and fairly. It was also liable for the conduct of the two authorised representatives and made false or misleading representations to potential clients.
ASIC alleged the two authorised representative firms:
Provided personal advice to clients when not licensed to do so;
Made false or misleading representations to clients including about the level of risk to which clients’ funds were exposed and the profits which clients could expect to generate; and
Engaged in unconscionable conduct, including by: