The regulator reviewed advice given by Tarandeep Aujila while he was an authorised representative of Infocus Securities Australia from 2013 to 2017 and Chaucer Group from October 2017.
ASIC had previously banned Mr Aujila in 2009.
The new surveillance found Mr Aujila did not obtain adequate information from clients about their personal circumstances including financial details, needs and objectives.
ASIC added he also recommended new insurance products to his clients without identifying or considering their existing products.
Further, Mr Aujila was found to made recommendations about the level of insurance cover based sorely on client direction instead of undertaking a thorough analysis of their needs or determining the impact of insurance premiums on their superannuation balance.
The banning will be recorded on the Financial Advisers Register, and Banned and Disqualified Persons Register.
Mr Aujila has the right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of ASIC’s decision.
In his first ban, ASIC had placed an 18-month sentence, but following Mr Aujila making an appeal, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal reduced the ban down to February to October 2009. The AAT accepted an undertaking that he would not provide financial services, apply for an AFSL or apply to be an authorised representative from 2009 to 2010.
In 2011, Mr Aujila was authorised by Lifespan Financial Planning.
no different to working at iselect or an industry super fund!
I’m not defending his conduct btw….he has been setup to fail however without adequate supervision as this guy is probably better suited to selling vacuums at Goodfreys!
How’s the compliance man looking at Chaucer group , obviously a clean bill of health at his last Audit .???/Allcare and no responsibility !!!1
Seems the decision to give him a 2nd chance was misplaced
How the fuck do you get re-authorised once you’ve been banned ?
I’m still personally of two minds about the whole client direction vs advice side of things though. Sometimes a client isn’t willing to take what’s recommended or is likely to be recommended, and isn’t willing to pay for the analysis either. It’s a bit of nanny-state to dictate to clients whether they’re able to instruct or not. Though I agree, on the face of this case he shouldn’t be in the industry
And the new CEO of Whichbank continues to enjoy a substancial salary after “tempering his sense of justice” regading the credit insurance scam. Thousand of consumers ripped off with this dud product. ASIC just chase the low hanging fruit to make it look like they are concerned with regulation.
Wonder how many Industry Super financial advisers have been thrown under the bus for selling or recommending group insurance cover that is also “manifestly inadequate”? ZERO
“Those who can do, those who can’t, teach.” – Perhaps this clown would be better off as a member of the FASEA board where his conflicts of interest will be greenlighted by the government of the day!
Seriously.. numpty. Get out.