Book Now
Book a Consultation

What is the value of compliance and contrition in financial services?

The Federal Court today imposed penalties of $35 million against Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd and $20 million against Latitude Finance Australia for misleading conduct and false or misleading representations they made in a national advertising campaign promoting a 60-month interest free and no deposit payment method for goods purchased at Harvey Norman stores. The combined penalty is the highest obtained by ASIC for misleading conduct and false or misleading representations relating to financial products and services. In respect of the penalties, the Court considered the parties compliance processes I have concluded that Harvey Norman and Latitude were equally responsible for the misleading advertisements. All other things being equal, it would be appropriate to impose the same penalty on each defendant. It must be determined whether there is sufficient reason to impose differential penalties on the defendants. [201] I consider that a higher penalty should be imposed on Harvey Norman in comparison to Latitude. A higher penalty is warranted to deter repetition and to motivate Harvey Norman to improve its compliance processes … I consider that penalties in those amounts will be sufficient to ensure that neither defendant regards the penalties as merely the cost of doing business. [211] The proceeding concerned a national advertising campaign run by Harvey Norman and Latitude between 1 January 2020 and 11 August 2021 promoting “no deposit” and “60 months interest free” purchases of goods from Harvey Norman franchise stores. The advertisements were widespread (newspapers, radio, TV) and did not disclose that to access the promotion consumers had to enter a continuing credit contract linked to a credit card account (the “GO Mastercard”) and pay fees (including an establishment fee and monthly account service fees. Compliance and contrition In delivering his Honour’s reasons, Justice O’Bryan said Harvey Norman and Latitude ‘put sales and their commercial interests above the interests of consumers, and also distorted the markets in which competing goods and finance are offered.’ The Court said that ‘the compliance processes of both defendants were wholly inadequate to prevent the contravening conduct.’ Justice O’Bryan further said, ‘Given the scale and sophistication of both defendants, that is an extraordinary state of affairs’ and ‘is particularly striking in the case of Harvey Norman’. Justice O’Bryan said that ‘Harvey Norman and Latitude were equally responsible for the contravening advertisements’, however, his Honour ordered Harvey Norman to pay a higher penalty because ‘the defendants have…exhibited a different level of contrition’, ’public statements made by Harvey Norman’s Chairman show a disregard for the potential harm suffered by consumers from Harvey Norman’s misleading conduct’, and ‘A higher penalty is warranted to deter repetition and to motivate Harvey Norman to improve its compliance processes’. Compliance culture The Court made a number of findings in respect of the parties culture of ensuring compliance with the ASIC Act: Harvey Norman the evidence adduced with respect to its compliance systems and training can be described as paltry. No witness was called to give evidence about Harvey Norman’s compliance systems and training during the relevant period […]
Read more

From good faith to fairness – the regulatory evolution of claims handling in Australia

Introduction: why “fairness” has become the organising idea in claims Claims handling is where the insurance promise is either delivered or denied. In Australia, expectations about claims conduct have historically been anchored in the duty of utmost good faith implied into insurance contracts and expressed in s 13 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) (ICA). That duty remains central to modern disputes, but it is no longer the sole regulatory “north star”. Since claims handling and settling was brought within the definition of a financial service from 1 January 2022, claims conduct has been reframed through the AFSL regime and, in particular, the obligation to provide financial services “efficiently, honestly and fairly” (EHF) under s 912 A(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). That obligation is now complemented, and in many respects operationalised, by the GI Code of Practice (GI Code), which has steadily moved from principle to process, and is now being redrafted again to further elevate claims standards, vulnerability supports and governance. This article traces that evolution: from good faith, to fairness, to the “fairness-by-design” direction signalled by the Draft GI Code. 1. Utmost good faith: the original claims-handling guardrail 1.1 The duty as an implied condition of the insurance bargain The duty of utmost good faith in ICA s 13 is often described as a key statutory expression of a long-standing insurance norm. In modern authority, the High Court has emphasised that s 13 is not a free‑standing general duty, but is to be understood in a way that aligns with the duty’s operation as an implied contractual conditiongoverning the manner in which rights, powers and obligations are exercised “under or in relation to” the contract. That framing matters in claims because the “pressure points” in claims, information requests, investigations, repair pathways, reserving rights, reliance on remedies for non-disclosure or misrepresentation, partial admissions and settlement strategy, are all exercises of contractual or statutory rights in connection with the contract. 1.2 What good faith has come to mean in claims conduct (and what it does not) Although the duty is contextual and case-specific, judicial discussion and regulatory pleadings have repeatedly linked utmost good faith to commercial standards of decency and fairness, due regard to the insured’s interests, and conduct that is not merely “not dishonest” but also not oppressive, capricious or unfair in its practical operation. At the same time, a persistent theme in modern commentary is that utmost good faith is not fiduciary and does not demand “unnatural altruism”; it is compatible with insurers legitimately protecting their own interests within the contract and the statute, provided that protection is pursued consistently with the duty’s constraints. The High Court’s decision in Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v Delor Vue Apartments CTS 39788 [2022] HCA 38 illustrates the point. The case arose from claims and settlement communications following cyclone damage, complicated by non‑disclosure of pre-existing defects and a dispute about the scope/sequence of works and allocation of costs. The High Court ultimately held that the insurer’s conduct (including reliance […]
Read more

I’m a Senior Manager in general insurance in Australia. What are my compliance obligations?

1. Accountability layers The Australian regulatory landscape (including industry Codes) has shifted over the years to bring in tighter personal accountability. Obligations attach to Senior Managers based on the nature and complexity of the business. A robust risk and compliance framework protects Senior Managers as they manage the challenge of wearing multiple hats. High-level obligations include: Prudential expectations (APRA):governance, risk discipline, and ensuring the right people are in the right roles, including formal fit and proper assessments of “responsible persons”. Conduct and licensing (ASIC / AFSL):if your business holds (or operates under) an AFSL, the licensee must meet the Corporations Act “general obligations”, including the obligation to deliver financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly, and to maintain organisational competence. Individual accountability (FAR):for general insurers, the Financial Accountability Regime creates an enforceable accountability framework for both the entity and accountable persons (senior executives with actual/effective responsibility over substantial parts of the business). 2. APRA Prudential Standards 2.1 Fit and Proper (CPS 520): it’s not a check-the-box HR process APRA’s Prudential Standard CPS 520 (Fit and Proper)sets minimum requirements for APRA‑regulated institutions (including general insurers) to determine whether people in positions of responsibility are fit to hold those roles. The general insurer must maintain a Fit and Proper Policy meeting CPS 520 requirements. Fitness and propriety of a responsible person must generally be assessed before appointment and reassessed annually. 2.2 Fit and Proper is ultimately “owned” by the Board, but executed by management CPS 520 states that the ultimate responsibility for ensuring fitness and propriety of responsible persons rests with the Board (or equivalent). In practice, senior management must ensure board reporting is accurate, timely, and defensible, particularly where there are adverse findings, exceptions, or interim appointments. 3. FAR (Financial Accountability Regime): personal accountability for insurance executives 3.1 FAR applies to general insurers Under the FAR Act’s simplified outline, general insurers are expressly listed as accountable entities. 3.2 Who is an “accountable person”? The FAR Act describes an accountable person as primarily someone with actual or effective senior executive responsibility for management or control of the entity, or of a significant/substantial part or aspect of operations (including within a corporate group). So if you run a major function: claims, underwriting, distribution, complaints, risk/compliance, IT/operations, finance, HR/people, or a large business unit, FAR may be relevant, even if your title isn’t “C-suite”. 3.3 What the entity must do under FAR (and why you’ll be involved) The FAR framework includes: Accountability obligations and key personnel obligations , including ensuring responsibilities covering all parts of the business are appropriately allocated to registered accountable persons who are not disqualified; Deferred remuneration obligations; Notification obligations; and Civil penalties may apply if the accountable entity fails to comply with these obligations. 3.4 Practical FAR “behaviours” for senior managers Even when the FAR paperwork is handled centrally, FAR changes what good looks like in day-to-day leadership: Clear responsibility boundaries (“I own this end-to-end”). Evidence of oversight (management information, controls assurance, issue management). Early escalation and documented remediation. 4. AFSL […]
Read more

How Do General Insurance Codes Operate Alongside Financial Services Laws?

The General Insurance Code of Practice (GI Code) applies to all insurers who have adopted it. In addition, the GI Code applies to the insurer’s Employees, Distributors, Service Suppliers, External Experts and authorised repairers. Practically, this includes Underwriting Agencies and any broker acting under a Binder, TPAs, Investigators, Loss Assessors or Loss Adjusters , Collection Agent, and home and motor vehicle repairers. Lloyd’s has adopted the Code subject to the condition that it only applies to policies issued by an Australian Coverholder under a binding authority agreement and claims managed in Australia. The Insurance Brokers Code of Practice (Brokers Code) applies to all NIBA members. In addition, the Brokers Code applies to the NIBA members (brokers) employees, agents and representatives (including authorised representatives). Both Codes are currently undergoing review. The role of Codes With the numerous and substantial changes to general insurance financial service laws since 2021 and upcoming release of the revised 2026 GI Code and Brokers Code it is useful to explore the role of Codes, and how they operate with general insurance financial service laws. ASIC’s view on the role of Industry Codes ASIC considers a code to be essentially a set of enforceable rules for the conduct of code subscribers. Codes should therefore improve consumer confidence in a particular industry or industries. (RG 183.2) ASIC believe that the primary role of a financial services code is to raise industry standards and deliver substantial consumer benefits. (RG 183.3) ASIC expects an effective code to do at least one, and preferably more than one, of the following (RG 183.4): (a) address specific industry issues and consumer problems not covered by legislation; (b) elaborate on legislation to deliver additional benefits to consumers; and/or (c) clarify what needs to be done from the perspective of a particular industry, practice or product to comply with legislation. What do the Codes say about operating with financial service laws? The Code and the law The current GI Code covers this in paragraphs 18-20 (my emphasis): The Code is designed to work with the many laws that cover our conduct and to deal with issues not dealt with in legislation. The Code does not limit your rights under law against us. Where there is an obligation under the Code in addition to a legal requirement, we will also comply with the Code, unless doing so would be in breach of the law. If there is any conflict or inconsistency between the Code and any Commonwealth, State or Territory law, then that law prevails. Draft 2026 GI Code Under the draft 2026 Code the material changes to the 2026 Code compared to the current are: the 2026 Code acknowledges that sometimes specific Code requirements are a higher standard than required of us by the law. (para 19); and obligations of the law or regulatory requirements are not incorporated into your policy and the law or regulatory requirement will prevail to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency. (para 20) Brokers Code The Code is designed […]
Read more

A summary of the Draft 2027 Insurance Brokers Code of Practice – my observations

NIBA has today opened the final draft of its rewritten Insurance Brokers Code of Practice for public consultation. Consultation closes on Friday, 7 August 2026. Key takeaways The Draft 2027 Insurance Brokers Code of Practice (2027 Code) is a sound industry Code with the following improvements over the current Code: The 2027 Code: AFSL – has strengthened the connection with brokers AFSL obligations; conflicts of interest – codified ASIC’s RG 181 Conflicts of Interests and provided a structured mechanism to manage conflicts; strata insurance – requires documented management of conflicts of interest, remuneration disclosure for all strata insurance, and identifies the owners corporation as the client not the strata manager remuneration – required for Retail Clients at quotation $ or % or both) and invoicing ($) and disclosure to all clients (retail and wholesale) when requested vulnerability – requires a structured documented approach including staff training and working with insurers reporting – codifies requirement to keep, produce and retain records IBCCC – strengthened enforcement and sanction powers review – every 5 years My observations of each Section Section 1 – About this Code the 2027 Code connects the Code to AFS Licences. This will provide stronger enforcement powers to IBCCC however requires some caution as the 2027 Code is directed at operational transactions and conduct while the s912A(1) AFSL general obligations are positioned at a more elevated level focusing on systems and procedures rather than isolated conduct. Section 2 – how the Code works the 2027 Code recognises the time to implement material system changes and provides for a 2 to 18 month system-change runway (in particular Section 7.1(a)(ii), which extends commission disclosure to strata insurance). the 2027 Code expressly applies to interactions and dealings with prospective clients. the 2027 Code has 2 tiers – Code Principles (section 3) and Obligations (sections 4-14). Where an obligation in the Code does not expressly cover a situation, the Code Principles guide how a Code Subscriber should act. Section 3 – Code Principles and our commitments the Code Principles apply to a wide range of interactions other than client interactions including prospective clients, other brokers (whether NIBA members or not), insurers, assessors, loss adjusters, and experts, IBCCC, NIBA, AFCA and regulators. the Principles include professional commitment (training & competency), ethical behaviour, transparency and accountability the Code extends to employees and authorised representatives of the NIBA member Section 4 – Engagement and terms greater disclosure obligations apply before acting for a prospective client and an overarching requirement to do everything we reasonably can to give our clients clear information so they understand the services we are providing. Section 5 – Communications, behaviour, and who we act for the 2027 Code effectively negates general advice other than when provided in generic advertising materials. When providing advice, we must give our clients the information they need to understand the advice, including the costs, key risks and benefits of any products we recommend, and any other matters required by law. It’s difficult to see how the above […]
Read more

Are you considering starting an Underwriting Agency in Australia? Here’s what you need to know

I have numerous conversations with people in Australia, UK and USA looking to start an Underwriting Agency in Australia and seeking to understand what’s involved from a regulatory perspective. Typically the clients in UK and USA are managing existing MGA’s across UK, Europe and USA. Australian clients are typically people who have worked at an insurer, broker, other underwriting agency or are currently managing an agency that is an AR of an insurer. Based on my experience, here are my top practical tips: 1. Understand the time frame It’s easy to feel a little overwhelmed by the task ahead however, rest assured, it’s a well-worn path although a sound plan is critical. Assuming you have landed on your insurance product offering and services (such as claims handling), some of the things you need to consider: as an underwriting agency you need to operate under a binder with an APRA regulated insurer. This can either be a general insurer (Australian based) or Lloyds underwriter. It’s important to have the binder discussions advanced as a draft copy of the binder (including the schedule(s) but unsigned) needs to be submitted as part of your AFSL application (see point 2). Binder discussions will also include claims management and complaint management. if you will be using Lloyd’s capacity you need to consider the time-frame for becoming a Lloyd’s coverholder. This requires engaging a sponsoring Lloyd’s broker and/or managing agent and Lloyd’s Australia. if the company (and including the ultimate parent) who controls the Australian licensee is based overseas with overseas domiciled directors you need to account for the time to obtain fit and proper checks from those jurisdictions the time to obtain an AFS Licence; and setting up your business including registration, systems, people and a myriad of other tasks and activities 2. Do you need an AFSL? An Underwriting Agency generally is required to hold an AFS Licence for general insurance products with financial product advice, dealing, and claims handling (if agreed by the insurer) authorisation. You do not need to hold an AFSL if you are an authorised representative of a suitably authorised licensee or can rely on an exemption. If you are intending to provide financial services to Wholesale clients only, there is an exemption for APRA regulated insurers and Lloyds underwriters. However, this creates practical issues in dealings with insurance brokers plus most Agencies prefer the governance that a Licence affords. 3. Setting up a business in Australia There are the usual steps involved in setting up a business in Australia, including: choosing the company type and shareholder/ownership structure registering the company with ASIC apply for an ABN and register Business name(s) RG 121 is an ASIC guide is for people or companies from overseas who propose to conduct a financial services business in Australia. 4. What are the people requirements for AFS licensing? The main requirements are: the fit and proper requirement – ASIC must ensure that your key people meet the requirements of the fit and proper test. This […]
Read more

GI Code Governance Committee – 2026-27 Priorities

Following a period of industry consultation the General Insurance Code Governance Committee (CGC) have set their priorities for 2026-27. Enduring priorities The CGC enduring priorities are the ones that underpin its work, year on year. These areas are always a priority because they present the most serious risk of detriment to consumers or have the potential to undermine confidence in industry’s commitments to customers. The CGC continues to prioritise: Code breaches that result in significant consumer detriment Code breaches that cause disproportionate detriment to vulnerable or disadvantaged consumers New or emerging risks Timely, accurate and transparent reporting from insurers. Main priorities for 2026-27 In 2026-27, the CGC will focus resources on two priority areas through targeted compliance monitoring, engagement, guidance and reviews. The new Code: development and implementation Supporting industry implementing the new Code effectively will be a major focus for the CGC in 2026-27. A smooth transition will help insurers embed new obligations effectively, ensure consumers receive the intended protections in practice and help deliver the full benefits of the reforms. Once the new Code is finalised, the CGC will focus on supporting consistent and effective implementation across the industry. The CGC will engage with insurers to promote understanding of new and amended obligations, clarify expectations and help insurers consider how the changes interact with existing compliance and monitoring requirements. The CGC will update existing resources and develop new guidance to support the implementation of the new Code. The CGC will also create resources for key stakeholders, such as consumer advocates, to help them understand how the new Code operates in practice. Motor claims handling and motor repairs The CGC will prioritise motor claims handling in response to ongoing concerns about delays, repair outcomes and insurers’ oversight of third-party providers. These issues continue to drive high levels of consumer complaints and can significantly affect consumers’ financial security, mobility and confidence during stressful circumstances. The CGC identified motor vehicle insurance complaints as an emerging area of concern last year. Given the continued volume of complaints and ongoing concerns about delays and repair outcomes, the CGC will undertake a targeted review in early 2026-27 into motor claims handling and repairer management. Through this work, the CGC aim to identify and address the key drivers of rising motor insurance complaints, with a particular focus on insurers’ oversight of repair networks and how insurers manage and respond to consumer complaints. Continuing activities Temporary accommodation and supporting customers experiencing vulnerability The CGC will continue to prioritise temporary accommodation arrangements, particularly where customers experiencing vulnerability may require additional support. This work is important because temporary accommodation issues can have a significant impact on customers’ safety, wellbeing, stability and recovery following an insured event. In early 2026-27, the CGC expect to publish its inquiry into how insurers meet their Code obligations to identify and support customers experiencing vulnerability in temporary accommodation arrangements. Following publication, the CGC will engage with insurers on its findings, including any identified compliance concerns and opportunities to improve industry practice. The CGC […]
Read more

The Hidden Risks of Letters of Appointment for Brokers

A recent case in the NSW Supreme Court has highlighted the hidden risks, and care required, by brokers using letters of appointment Sphere Healthcare Pty Ltd v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2026] NSWSC 579 The case involved a breach of the duty of disclosure for failing to disclose the storage of bulk ethanol that exceeded the capacity of the dangerous goods area and was placed next to the factory. The factory was destroyed in a fire and the insurer successfully denied indemnity. The insured manufactured health care products and infant formula however, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the insured decided to make hand sanitiser and sought cover under an ISR policy. However, during the period that the insured was trying to source ethanol (to use in the production of hand sanitiser), the insured changed brokers. My focus for the purposes of this article is the circumstances of the appointment of the broker. The circumstances In parallel with the sourcing of a large quantity of ethanol, the Group (who had recently acquired the insured), was working with three insurance brokers to source insurance for the group. The Group wanted to keep the ISR policy which the holding broker had arranged. The new broker asked the insurer to transfer the ISR policy, while the holding broker asked the insurer to cancel it. After some confusion caused by the fact that the new broker’s letter of appointment was back-dated, the insurer issued a new policy schedule and wording but for the same premium. [4] The appointment of the holding broker 4 months prior to the fire and following a tender process, the insured provided the holding broker with a letter of appointment [76]. The Court highlighted the insured’s discussions to change brokers; notwithstanding the letter of appointment, the Group was continuing to seek cheaper insurance through the new broker. The insured emailed the new broker, pressing for the best price, “Please try any good strategies to get us a good package deal”. The insured proposed to “fully follow” some policies arranged by the holding broker, including for the relevant site, and then use the new broker to arrange other policies, “This way, the total cost is still much lower than the current [holding broker] pricing.” But the policies arranged by the new broker “cannot be backdated”. Nor did they want to pay “broker fees twice”. It was decided to appoint the new broker on receiving confirmation that the policies arranged by the holding broker “will remain unchanged after [the new broker] takes over, and we won’t be double charged.” [127] Back-dating the letter of appointment for the new broker In order … to take over some of the policies”, the new broker recommended that its appointment be backdated to 29 February 2020. The insured was asked to photocopy a letter onto the Group’s letterhead and to sign and return the document that day. In respect of the policy for the relevant site, the new broker noted “to take over, premium amended”. […]
Read more

The ecosystem of Insurance as a fairness mechanism

Over the past few days I’ve been involved in a number of fascinating discussions with insurance leaders from claims, product and pricing and repairers, loss assessors, brokers and experts (engineers etc). The conversation has always led to the role of fairness in insurance. This concept is underpinned by a legal and code structure that requires services and products to be provided efficiently, honestly, fairly, transparently and timely, acting with the utmost good faith. I have been thinking through a framework that operates as an insurance ecosystem providing procedural fairness delivering fair outcomes. This does not mean pay every claim. Far from it, but an adverse decision would be arrived at efficiently and be part of a robust decision-making process where the insured was an intrinsic part of the process. I welcome your thoughts on the components of an ecosystem that operates as a fairness mechanism. I’ve provided some of my initial thinking to promote the conversation: everyone involved in the ecosystem is focused on fairness through conduct, behaviors and compliance with laws and codes; Insurers design and act within fair frameworks and systems. Such as triaging claims and complaints at lodgement so that complexity and vulnerability characteristics are identified early and specialist resources allocated before problems arise; consumer advocates, brokers and claimant intermediaries act as the voice of the customer however the system acts as a customer advocate when the customer is unrepresented; the system starts with a proposition that: the claim is covered unless the evidence shows otherwise; the complaint is valid until the evidence shows otherwise – with short time frames for the evidence to show otherwise; the use of AI to streamline decision-making and ensure that the right people with the appropriate levels of skills, knowledge and authority are involved at an early stage where the policy/claim is not atypical (such as the early indicators of characteristics or complexity and vulnerability); frontline staff act as the guardians of the system and provided with the training, systems and tools to, for example; (1) resolve complaints at first point of contact, (2) identify complexity and vulnerability; and (3) challenge an experts report that they don’t understand so that a defective report doesn’t become part of the ecosystem; the time from ‘IDR-EDR-Determination’, is reduced from months or years to weeks; expert reports are truly independent and factual that anyone in the system can rely on in good faith as the basis for conversation or settlement; product design and distribution flows through marketing – product design and pricing – sales – underwriting – claims; distribution processes align product design to customer needs, objectives and requirements while enabling freedom of choice; unconscious bias is removed from the system; remuneration is merely an output of the value that a person contributes to the system and the system manages inherent conflicts the system ensures that relevant resources are allocated to the complex, the vulnerable, the difficult; the system includes controls that manages, regulates, or directs the behavior of people, processes, or systems to achieve […]
Read more

What does it mean to carry on an insurance business in Australia?

In order to determine whether you need to be: authorised by APRA to carry on a general insurance business in Australia (Part III Division 1 Insurance Act 1973)and/or hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) to provide financial services in Australia (such services include general insurance) (Section 911A Corporations Act) its necessary to consider whether you are carrying on an insurance business in Australia. Sources: Sutton on Insurance Law, Enright, Merkin, Hawke, Lawbook Co 2025 and ASIC Regulatory Guide RG 121 Carrying on Business The concept of ‘carrying on a business’ has been interpreted by the Courts and is also affected by section 21 Corporations Act. It should be noted that carrying on a business in Australia depends on the factual circumstances. However generally: include the degree to which a body corporate’s activities in Australia are conducted with system, repetition and continuity; the relevant activity need not generate or be motivated by profit; the business may be a carried on as part of or in conjunction with any other business; and it may be carried on alone or in conjunction with others. In Australia Section 21 provides that a body corporate has a place of business in Australia if the body corporate: establishes or is using a share transfer office or share registration office in Australia; or is administering, managing, or otherwise dealing with, property situated in Australia as an agent, legal personal representative or trustee, whether by employees or agents or otherwise. Section 21(3) provides a number of factors that in and of themselves do not indicate that a body corporate carries on a business in Australia. If you: a) are or become a party to a proceeding or effect settlement of a proceeding or of a claim or dispute; (b) hold meetings of your directors or shareholders or carry on other activities concerning your internal affairs; (c) maintain a bank account; (d) effect a sale through an independent contractor; (e) create evidence of a debt or create a charge on property; (f) secure or collect any of your debts or enforce your rights in regard to any securities relating to such debts; (g) conduct an isolated transaction that is completed within 31 days, not being one of a number of similar transactions repeated from time to time; or (h) invest any of your funds or hold any property Inducing If you engage in conduct that is ‘intended to induce people’ in Australia (or you engage in conduct that is likely to induce people in Australia) to use financial services you provide, then you will need to hold an AFS licence, unless an exemption applies. This is because of the deeming provision in s911D, which says that such conduct is ‘taken to be’ carrying on a financial services business in Australia. ASIC have granted specific exemptions that may apply: see ASIC Corporations (Foreign Financial Services Providers—Limited Connection) Instrument 2017/182 for ‘inducing’ wholesale clients, which applies until 31 March 2027. (refer RG 121.50) ASIC provides the following example in Table […]
Read more