A strong ethical framework provides the foundation for a trusted and respected financial advice profession.

This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, examines standards seven to twelve of the Code of Ethics. Standards one to six were examined in a previous article you can read here.

The Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 (Code) is principles based. It applies to a wide range of situations that require advisers to exercise their professional judgement. Professionalism is a frequent topic of discussion in the industry, and for good reason: it’s essential to the future success of financial advice.

What is professionalism?

Professionalism covers a lot of ground. It means delivering on your promises, putting your client first and providing services to the best of your ability. It means keeping your knowledge and training current, understanding the laws and principles that define your role and operating within them. Professionalism helps you inspire others, both within and outside the industry, and gives you a sense of satisfaction at having delivered real value to your clients through your guidance and advice.

A guiding principle of professional financial advice is to always act in the best interests of your clients, in the same way any reasonable person would expect their doctor, dentist, accountant or other service provider to act: professionally, with your interests front and centre.

A focus on professionalism benefits you, your practice, the financial advice industry and, crucially, your clients. As the industry becomes increasingly professional, those who lack the appropriate professionalism stand out and, over time, will be filtered out. Professionalism builds trust, and trust builds long term relationships. Both are essential to both a successful advice practice and a successful, growing industry.

The Code of Ethics

The Code is comprised of twelve standards which, in turn, are based on five values. These were detailed in part one of this article.

The standards are not intended to provide a compliance checklist; the intent is for you to make active decisions that result in ethical behaviour and the prioritisation of every client’s best interests. Section 961B of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) lists the steps an adviser must take to satisfy the ‘best interests’ standard, which is central to the Code.

In brief, these steps are:

• To identify the client’s financial situation, objectives and needs
• To identify the subject matter of the advice sought by the client (whether explicitly or implicitly)
• To identify the client’s relevant circumstances – the objectives, financial situation and needs that would reasonably be considered as relevant to advice sought on that subject matter
• To ensure this information is complete and correct; enquiries should be made if gaps or inconsistencies are apparent
• To identify whether you have the relevant expertise to provide the client with advice on the subject matter sought and, if not, decline to provide the advice
• When considering the advice sought, whether it would be reasonable to consider recommending a financial product; if it is deemed relevant, they should only recommend a product after thoroughly investigating the most appropriate products relevant to the client’s circumstances
• When advising the client, the financial adviser must base all judgements on the client’s relevant circumstances
• Take any other step that, at the time the advice is provided, would reasonably be regarded as being in the best interests of the client, given the client’s relevant circumstances

This final point is designed as a ‘catch all’, a statement that encapsulates the spirit of the legislation. Irrespective of the client’s requirements, the advice must be underpinned by knowledge of the client and their circumstances.

While the best interest duty applies to retail clients, a similar fiduciary duty is required for dealings with wholesale clients. To meet the obligations imposed by section 961B of the Act  is the basis of ethical behaviour in dealing with clients.

Relevant providers

The legislation identifies ‘relevant providers’ as those who must abide by the Code. Relevant providers are defined as an individual who is:

• A financial services licensee
• An authorised representative, an employee or director of a financial services licensee
• An employee or director of a related body corporate of a financial services licensee

Any individual listed on ASIC’s Financial Advisers Register as authorised to provide personal financial advice to retail clients – as the licensee or on behalf of the licensee – in relation to relevant financial products is considered to be a relevant provider.

The Code is compulsory for all relevant providers and responsibility for applying the principles of the Code falls on individuals. In the event of a review by a licensee or regulatory bodies, advisers must be prepared to provide details of their interpretation and application of the Code in relation to specific clients and situations.

Financial services licensees also have a role under the Act to monitor and enforce compliance with the Code. Licensees are required to structure their business operations in a way that facilitates their authorised representatives being able to operate ethically and comply with each of the twelve standards that comprise the Code.

Ethical competencies

The Code contains twelve standards grouped under four ethical competencies:

1. Ethical Behaviour (standards one to three)
2. Client Care (standards four to six)
3. Quality Process (standards seven to nine)
4. Professional Commitment (standards ten to twelve)

Each of these ethical competencies contains three standards, which, in turn, contain ethical principles. In applying these principles, advisers are expected to exercise professional judgement according to the specific circumstances of each individual client. As stated earlier, the standards are not a compliance checklist. Rather, they are a set of guidelines to ensure your advice is in the best interests of each client, steered by the values that underpin the Code.

While ethics is defined in many different ways, it can be broadly distilled as a system of moral principles that is concerned with what is good for individuals and society. In the world of financial advice, it means treating your clients fairly, acting in their best interests always and acting with honesty, integrity and competence. In short, embodying the values upon which the Code is based.

Quality process

Quality processes encompass standards seven to nine and while these standards encapsulate all the values upon which the standards are based, those of honesty, integrity and competence are highlighted.

Figure one highlights each of the standards that fall under the competency ‘Quality Process’.

Standard seven

The purpose of standard seven is to ensure clients freely give ‘informed consent’ to benefits the adviser (or licensee) will receive, and that this consent is obtained before the client receives advice. It is important to note that benefits are not limited to fees and charges.

As well as disclosing – and receiving consent for – the charges to the client and benefits to the adviser or licensee, standard seven requires that:

• Unless expressly permitted by the Act, advisers may not receive any benefits, in connection with acting for a client, that derive from a third party other than that adviser’s principal
• Fees should reflect the benefit to clients over the long term balanced by the costs in providing the advice
• Advisers must be satisfied that any benefits received in connection with acting for the client are fair and reasonable and represent value for money.

The requirement to limit the benefits an adviser may derive from a third party is intended to reduce the likelihood of third party influence on the advice given. Many of the recent cases involving advisers and licensees with respect to the First Guardian and Shield Master Funds would likely have breached standard seven.

As regularly highlighted by the trade media, breaches of standard seven continue to blight the financial advice industry, which reflects poorly on all participants. That itself is a breach of an ethical standard, as you will read later in this article.

Case study – Undisclosed third-party benefits

Adviser Craig operated as an authorised representative of ACME Advice, a mid-sized licensee. Over an 18-month period, Craig received referrals from a lead generation firm that cold-called consumers about their superannuation. Clients referred through this channel were consistently advised to roll their existing super into a choice fund on a specific platform, then invest a large share of that balance into two unlisted managed investment schemes marketed as offering strong, stable returns.

Craig did not disclose to these clients that the lead generation firm received a fee for each successful referral, structured as a percentage of funds invested, paid indirectly through arrangements with the platform and fund promoters. Statements of Advice referenced ‘adviser service fees’ but gave no detail on the source, size or structure of these third-party payments. Clients signed consent forms bundled into the broader advice paperwork, without a clear or separate explanation of what they were consenting to.

Standard seven requires that a client give free, prior and informed consent to all benefits an adviser or their principal receives in connection with acting for that client, and that any fees charged are fair, reasonable and represent value for money. Advisers may not receive benefits from a third party outside their principal unless expressly permitted under the Act.

Craig’s conduct breached standard seven in several ways:

• Clients were not given a clear, separate explanation of the referral payment arrangement before receiving advice, so consent was not properly informed
• The benefits flowing from the lead generator to the platform and fund promoters, and indirectly connected to Craig’s advice, were not disclosed at all
• The fees charged bore no clear relationship to the scope or complexity of the advice given, undermining the ‘fair and reasonable’ requirement.

When the underlying schemes – the Shield Master Fund and First Guardian Master Fund – experienced severe liquidity issues and investor losses mounted, ASIC’s review of adviser conduct in this space identified referral-linked recommendation patterns as a recurring red flag. Advisers found to have failed proper disclosure and consent obligations connected to these schemes have faced banning orders, some for periods of five to ten years, along with referrals to AFCA and the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort for affected clients. ACME Advice faced its own scrutiny for failing to monitor referral arrangements and adviser conduct across its authorised representative network.

Standard eight

Standard eight requires financial advisers keep complete and accurate records of advice and services provided to clients. It also requires that:

• Advisers meet legislative requirements relating to the secure storage of client records
• Client records must be complete and accurate for both current and former clients
• Records should include file notes of discussions
• Client records must be easily accessible.

Whether using a paper or online record system, client records should be kept in one place, with appropriate security measures in place. Because of the increasing propensity to use cloud services to store records, mitigating cybersecurity risk is increasingly important.

Case study – Good record-keeping

Kaye is a financial adviser at ACME Financial Advice. Her clients, Mary and Alex, engaged her to manage their investments with the goal of long-term capital growth. During their initial consultations, Kaye completed a thorough risk profiling process and documented that both Mary and Alex identified as growth-oriented investors, comfortable with short-term market fluctuations in exchange for higher long-term returns. Based on this profile and their stated objectives, Kaye recommended a portfolio weighted towards growth assets.

Sometime later, Mary and Alex decided they wanted to access their investment capital earlier than originally planned. At that point, due to broader market volatility, their portfolio was showing a capital loss. Believing Kaye’s advice had caused the loss, Mary and Alex lodged a complaint with AFCA.

Mary and Alex’s position was that the growth investments Kaye recommended were unsuitable and had directly caused a financial loss. Their complaint centred on two claims: that the advice hadn’t matched their risk tolerance, and that Kaye hadn’t adequately explained the possibility of short-term losses when they first agreed to the investment strategy.

Because Kaye maintained detailed and contemporaneous file notes throughout her relationship with Mary and Alex, she was able to provide AFCA with clear evidence of the advice process, including:

• The original risk profiling documentation, showing Mary and Alex’s own responses indicating a growth risk tolerance and a long-term investment timeframe
• File notes from the advice meeting, recording that Kaye had explained the nature of growth assets, including the likelihood of short-term volatility and the possibility of capital loss over shorter periods
• The Statement of Advice, which set out the recommended strategy, the reasons it was appropriate for their stated objectives, and the risks associated with it in plain language
• Ongoing review notes, showing that Kaye had checked in with Mary and Alex at agreed intervals and confirmed their objectives and risk tolerance hadn’t changed
• A record of the conversation in which Mary and Alex first raised the idea of accessing their capital early, including Kaye’s explanation of the impact this timing would have given current market conditions.

Taken together, these records gave AFCA a complete picture of the advice process from beginning to end. They showed that Kaye’s recommendation had been based on Mary and Alex’s own stated objectives and risk tolerance at the time, that she had clearly explained the risks involved, and that the capital loss they experienced was a result of choosing to withdraw funds earlier than planned during a period of market volatility, not a result of unsuitable advice.

AFCA found in Kaye’s favour. The determination centred on the fact that Kaye could clearly demonstrate the basis for her original recommendation and show that it aligned with what Mary and Alex had communicated about their goals and risk tolerance. Her records also showed that the risk of short-term loss had been explained at the outset, which meant Mary and Alex’s decision to withdraw early, rather than the original advice, was the more direct cause of the loss they experienced.

This case illustrates the practical value of standard eight. Kaye’s advice itself may well have been appropriate and well-reasoned, but without documentation to demonstrate that at the time it was given, she would have had little to rely on beyond her own recollection of events that occurred months or years earlier. Her file notes, risk profiling records and Statement of Advice gave AFCA an objective, contemporaneous account of the advice process, which is what standard eight is designed to support.

Standard nine

Standard nine requires that any financial product advice, and all financial products covered by that advice, are offered to each client in good faith and with competence. This covers the following broad requirements:

• Advisers offering financial product advice and recommendations must have the knowledge and competence to provide the advice
• The advice and product recommendations must be in the best interests of each client
• The advice and product recommendations must be delivered in a way the client can easily understand and take at ‘face value’
• The advice and product recommendations consider the broad effects arising from the client acting on the advice and the broader, long-term interests and likely circumstances of the client
• Advisers identify any risks to the client and discuss them openly and honestly.

Advisers are expected to investigate each financial product they recommend. This means having enough knowledge and understanding of the product, including its benefits, risks and costs, to recommend it with confidence.

The legislation also makes clear that advisers are not acting in good faith if they’re aware, or should be aware, of something that would suggest their advice isn’t in the client’s best interests, once the broader and long-term effects on the client’s circumstances are considered.

Standard nine also reflects existing law: financial product advice and recommendations must not be misleading or deceptive.

Case study – Failure to act in good faith

Hannah, 58, held around $340,000 in a large industry super fund. She was contacted by a lead generation firm offering a ‘free superannuation health check’ and referred to Martin, an authorised representative of ACME Financial Advisers. Martin recommended Hannah roll her entire balance into a new platform and invest a significant portion into an unlisted managed investment scheme, presenting it as offering strong, stable returns with modest risk.

Martin had not reviewed the scheme’s product disclosure statement in detail, was unaware of its underlying asset composition and had not checked whether the scheme held the licences and registrations it claimed. He was unaware of the mounting concerns already circulating among other advisers and researchers about the scheme’s liquidity and governance. His Statement of Advice described the scheme in general, favourable terms lifted largely from the promoter’s marketing material and did not address these red flags because he hadn’t gone looking for them.

Hannah, trusting Martin’s professional judgement, proceeded with the switch.

Standard nine requires that financial product advice, and the products recommended, must not be misleading or deceptive. It also requires advisers to act in good faith, meaning they must not ignore matters they were aware of, or ought reasonably to have been aware of, that would suggest the advice wasn’t in the client’s best interests once her broader and long-term circumstances were properly considered.

Martin breached standard nine in two ways:

1. His advice was misleading, not necessarily through deliberate deception, but because it presented a picture of the scheme’s risk and stability that he had no proper basis to support. He hadn’t done the work needed to know whether that picture was accurate.
2. He failed to act in good faith. A reasonably diligent adviser researching this scheme would have come across the warning signs circulating at the time. Martin’s failure to investigate doesn’t excuse the advice; the standard covers what he ought to have known, not just what he actually knew.

When the scheme collapsed, Hannah lost a substantial portion of her retirement savings, with limited near-term prospect of recovery. ASIC’s broader review of adviser conduct connected to schemes of this kind has identified inadequate due diligence and advice built on promoter material rather than independent analysis as a recurring pattern. Advisers found to have failed these obligations have faced banning orders, and their clients have needed to pursue claims through AFCA and the Compensation Scheme of Last Resort.

Standard nine puts the onus on the adviser to investigate, not just to relay. Good faith isn’t measured only by intent. It’s measured by whether the adviser did what a reasonable, informed professional would do before putting a client’s retirement savings on the line. Martin’s failure wasn’t that he set out to mislead Hannah. It was that he recommended something he didn’t properly understand and passed along claims he hadn’t tested.

Professional commitment

Figure two highlights each of the standards that fall under the competency ‘Professional Commitment’.

Standard ten

The focus of standard ten is to ensure that financial advisers have and maintain an appropriate level of relevant knowledge and skill to provide competent financial advice that is in the best interests of their clients.

Section 921B of the Act sets out the education and training standards for a person who is, or is to be, a relevant provider. It, in turn, is made up of four standards:

1. Qualifications standard – the person has completed a bachelor’s or higher degree, or equivalent qualification, approved by the Minister (or holds an approved foreign qualification or an approval under section 921GA(3))
2. Exam standard – the person has passed an exam administered by ASIC in accordance with principles approved by the Minister
3. Professional year standard – the person has undertaken at least one year of work and training that meets the requirements set by the Minister
4. Continuing professional development standard – the person meets the CPD requirements set by the Minister.

Standard ten also requires that:

• Financial advisers provide advice only in areas where they have the necessary skills and competencies to do so in a professional way
• Advisers undertake sufficient continuing professional training to maintain competence at an appropriate level for the professional services, including financial product advice, provided
• Advisers keep up to date with industry, regulatory and product developments relevant to their practice
• Where an adviser specialises in a particular area, they don’t provide advice outside that area unless they have the necessary skills and competencies to do so in a professional way
• Where an adviser doesn’t have the skills and competencies to provide advice sought by a client, that client should be referred to an adviser with relevant skills and knowledge.

Continuing professional development

Financial advisers are required to complete 40 hours of continuing professional development each continuing professional development year[1]. Licensees are responsible for approving at least 70 percent of CPD activities.

The minimum hours for continuing professional development across the mandatory categories are:

• Technical Competence – five hours
• Client Care and Practice – five hours
• Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Protection – five hours
• Professionalism and Ethics – nine hours

The balance up to 40 hours must consist of qualifying continuing professional development.

Case study – A failure of competence

Melanie, an adviser at ACME Advice, had built her practice over more than a decade, largely on traditional risk insurance and retirement income advice. When several long-standing clients began asking about self-managed super funds and direct property investment through their super, including gearing arrangements and the tax implications, Melanie agreed to advise on these strategies rather than referring clients to a specialist.

Melanie had not completed any structured training in SMSF establishment or limited recourse borrowing arrangements. She relied on product provider webinars and general reading to piece together her understanding and had not kept pace with recent changes to contribution caps, in-house asset rules or borrowing restrictions. When advising a client, Robert, on setting up an SMSF to purchase an investment property, Melanie miscalculated the fund’s borrowing capacity and failed to account for a recent change to non-arm’s length income provisions, exposing Robert to a higher tax outcome than she had advised. Robert discovered the error when his accountant reviewed the fund’s tax position at year end.

Standard ten requires advisers to develop, maintain and apply a high level of relevant knowledge and skill. This standard exists because competent advice depends on the adviser genuinely understanding the strategy, product or structure they’re recommending, not just being broadly familiar with it.

Melanie’s conduct breached standard ten because:

• She advised on a complex strategy (SMSF borrowing) outside her core area of expertise, without completing adequate training or accreditation in that area first.
• She did not keep her knowledge current about relevant regulatory changes that directly affected the advice she gave.
• Her CPD activity, largely informal and product-provider led, did not build the depth of technical knowledge the strategy required.

Robert incurred additional tax liability and administrative costs correcting the fund’s structure. He lodged a complaint with AFCA, which found in his favour, and ACME Advice was required to compensate him for the financial loss. ASIC’s review of the complaint also raised concerns about ACME Advice’s oversight of advisers providing advice outside their demonstrated areas of competence, prompting a broader review of the licensee’s authorisation and training framework.

Standard eleven

Standard eleven requires financial advisers to cooperate with ASIC and other monitoring bodies in any investigation. This includes a requirement to respond to requests in a timely and open manner and provide requested documentation or records that may assist the investigation.

This duty applies in addition to the offences outlined in sections 921M and 921P of the Act.

Case study – Attempt to mislead ASIC

Financial adviser Duncan was an authorised representative of several licensees over a fifteen-year period, most recently at ACME Financial Planning. He was permanently banned from providing financial services after an ASIC investigation found that he had persistently engaged in dishonest conduct.

In banning him, ASIC noted their belief that Duncan was likely to contravene a financial services law for reasons including that he had engaged in dishonest conduct while an authorised representative of one licensee and continued to do so at ACME Financial Planning. Additionally, Duncan acted dishonestly in the course of responding to an ASIC statutory notice.

ASIC’s investigation found that Duncan had:

• Dishonestly backdated advice documents to clients
• Incorrectly witnessed binding nomination of beneficiary forms
• Allowed the incorrectly witnessed binding nomination forms to be submitted to insurers on behalf of clients
• Inserted signatures and dates into documents to look like he was compliant with his obligations as an authorised representative
• Falsified company books while carrying out his financial planning and advice business
• Implemented financial advice to clients before they were provided with a statement of advice
• Created or modified documents on client files produced to ASIC and attempted to induce a client to mislead ASIC.

As well as being banned from providing financial services, Duncan was placed on a good behaviour bond for two years. Commenting on the falsification of records, the sentencing judge noted this action to be “A breach of trust of those who you’re engaged to act for.”

Duncan’s actions were unethical on several levels. However, he specifically contravened standard eleven by attempting to mislead ASIC through modified or ‘created’ records, as well as actively inducing a client to mislead the regulator on his behalf.

Standard twelve

For financial advisers to be perceived as a professional group, they need to embody the values that underpin the Code: trustworthiness, competence, honesty, fairness and diligence.

Standard twelve deals with relevant providers’ professional relationships with each other and emphasises that each needs to be supportive and aligned to the profession as a whole. To build trust among consumers, being – and being seen to be – a profession that acts ethically and professionally is critical for the long-term success of the industry.

If you’re supervising a provisional relevant provider through their professional year, this duty has a personal dimension too. It means genuinely supporting them, not just ticking off requirements; they need to get real value from their professional year and should be properly set up for the work ahead.

Case study – Failure to uphold the ethical standards of the profession

Ian ran a small financial services business, initially operating as a licensed authorised representative. From mid-2019, Ian’s licence was revoked, but he continued operating as though nothing had changed. Between 2017 and 2021, he recommended that several clients invest funds from their SMSFs into products he personally controlled, promising fixed returns of 8-12 percent per annum, with some arrangements promising up to 100 percent return upon maturity (stated as three years).

The promised investments were not implemented. Instead, Ian directed a significant portion of investor funds into his own bank account for personal purchases. These included property held in his own name, educational expenses for his three children and expensive cars.

Standard twelve requires advisers, individually and together with their peers, to uphold and promote the ethical standards of the profession and hold each other accountable for protecting the public interest. Ian’s conduct struck directly at the heart of this standard. Continuing to operate as an adviser after losing his licence, and using client funds for personal benefit, wasn’t a technical or process failure. It actively undermined public trust in the profession as a whole.

Ian’s conduct resulted in significant financial harm to his clients, many of whom had entrusted their retirement savings to him in good faith. The matter was investigated and referred for prosecution, resulting in imprisonment. Beyond the personal consequences for Ian, cases like this attract public and regulatory attention that affects perceptions of the entire advice profession. This reinforces the importance of individual accountability and the willingness of the profession to call out and report misconduct when it’s identified.

Standards seven to twelve of the Code move the focus from what advice looks like on paper to how it plays out in practice. None of these standards exist in isolation. A breach of one often signals a breakdown in several others. For better or worse, disclosure, competence and accountability tend to move together. For advisers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: understand what you’re recommending, be upfront about what you and your business stand to gain, keep your knowledge current and be prepared to explain your decisions if asked. These aren’t high bars. They’re the basic expectations of a trusted profession, and the cases where things go wrong are often those cases where one or more of these basics was missed.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.75 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.75 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Profesionalism and Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

Read CPD: A review of the Code of Ethics (part one)

———–

Notes:
[1]  ASIC, Continuing Professional Development

The post CPD: A review of the Code of Ethics (part two) appeared first on AdviserVoice.

A strong ethical framework provides the foundation for a trusted and respected financial advice profession.

The Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics (Code) has sat at the centre of adviser conduct in Australia since it became mandatory on 1 January 2020. This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, examines the values and standards (one to six) that underpin the Code.

The Code sets out standards and core values designed to lift professionalism and behaviour among relevant providers. It establishes twelve standards covering everything from client best interests through to professional judgement and competence, and every relevant provider under the Corporations Act must comply with it.

Speaking at the National Press Club on 19 August 2026, Financial Services Minister the Hon Dr Daniel Mulino MP said the government has firmly turned its attention to the next phase of the DBFO returns. He noted the government’s intention to “also progress a review of the Adviser Code of Ethics to ensure it is fit for purpose.”^[1]

However, the Code you are bound by today is the one written in 2019 by a body that no longer exists. While a review is on the government’s agenda, no public consultation or exposure draft has yet dealt with the standards directly. Until that changes, understanding each standard, as it stands, remains a useful exercise.^[2]

A values-based Code

The Code addresses five core values, and its twelve standards reflect these in practice. As highlighted in the legislation, these values are paramount, and all provisions of the Code must be read and applied in a way that promotes these five core values. It is, according to the explanatory statement that accompanies the legislation, an ethical duty under the Code to demonstrate, realise and promote these values^[1].

Code of Ethics

The Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 is comprised of twelve standards, which are grouped under four ethical competencies:

• Ethical Behaviour (standards one to three)
• Client Care (standards four to six)
• Quality Process (standards seven to nine)
• Professional Commitment (standards ten to twelve)

Advisers and licensees are expected to weigh each standard’s ethical principles against their own professional judgement and the circumstances at hand. The standards are not a compliance checklist.

This article examines standards one to six and provides a case study to illustrate each. The case studies are based on real events; however, the names of people and organisations have been changed, and some details altered. The case studies have been drawn from ASIC, AFCA and the FSCP.

Ethical Behaviour

Ethical behaviour in financial advice is much more than simply following rules. It means acting with honesty, competence and genuine care for each of your client’s interests, even when no one is checking the file. The Code was built on this idea. Rather than listing every scenario an adviser might face, it sets out core values and standards that require judgement, reflection and a willingness to put the client first when interests conflict.

This is what separates a profession from an industry that simply complies with the letter of the law. The standards that follow give shape to that expectation, translating broad ethical principles into specific obligations advisers can apply day to day.

Figure one highlights each of the standards that fall under the competency ‘Ethical Behaviour’.

Standard one

Since the Corporations Act first came into being, financial advisers have had to abide by the laws that guide their profession. While the majority operate within the prescribed legal boundaries and within the spirit of the law, there’s a small number of advisers who avoid or circumvent the intent of the Act, skirt those laws that exist to protect consumers from unprincipled operators.

Standard one – acting in accordance with applicable laws and the Code of Ethics, is highlighted as the minimum ethical obligation financial advisers must meet.

This standard requires that:

• Advisers will take steps to understand their legal obligations, under both the law and the adviser Code of Ethics
• Advisers will ensure the advice they provide is not intended to circumvent the intent of financial services laws or the Code of Ethics
• Advisers must not establish business structures to circumvent their ethical obligations
• Advisers must always act in the best interests of their clients.

Importantly, standard one encourages advisers to consider both the legalities and ethics of each course of action they take. Because the Code is enshrined in legislation, a breach of the Code will result in a breach of the law (and by default, the Code).

Case study – failure to comply with financial service laws

ACME Advice operated two Gold Coast-based financial advisory practices between 2018 and 2024. This included running a managed discretionary account service and a superannuation rollover business. ASIC cancelled the firm’s AFSL in May 2025 following concerns it had breached a number of its legal obligations.

A hearing before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in 2025, found that ACME’s contraventions included:

• engaging in unconscionable conduct
• prohibited hawking
• misleading or deceptive conduct
• false or misleading statements
• failing to provide appropriate advice
• failing to act in the best interests of clients

While ACME Advice and its advisers are likely to have breached several of the Code’s standards, the fact that it breached the Corporations Act 2001 (unconscionable conduct, hawking, failing to act in client best interests among others), as well as the Code, is an evident breach of standard one.

The AAT upheld ASIC’s decision to cancel ACME Advice’s AFS licence.

Standard two

Standard two requires that financial advisers act with integrity and in the best interests of their clients. Although encapsulated in a range of laws, the Code makes clients – and their best interests – front and centre.

Integrity underpins trust, the first of the values the Code is built on. A professional without integrity cannot build trust with clients. Integrity is also tied closely to the third value, honesty, since acting honestly is difficult to sustain without it.

Acting in the best interests of clients underpins each of the five values and is the pivotal requirement that supports each of the twelve standards.

This standard requires that:

• Advisers consider each client, and their needs, individually
• Advisers are honest, open and frank in all dealings with clients
• Advisers prioritise their clients’ interests over their own or their licensees’ interests
• Advisers must honour commitments made to their clients.

Putting each and every client’s interests first requires that advisers ensure the advice, products and services recommended are appropriate to meet the client’s objectives, financial situation and needs. This needs to include consideration of the client’s longer-term interests and expected future circumstances.

Importantly, the explanatory notes that accompany the legislation specifically state that you are not relieved of this ethical duty merely because the client does not provide enough information – even when asked.

Case study – a failure of integrity

The FSCP cancelled the registration of adviser Joe, barring him from re-registering until after a date in September 2027 and prohibiting him from providing personal advice to retail clients on relevant financial products during that period.

The FSCP found Joe breached the best interests duty, the appropriate advice obligation and SOA timing requirements in relation to three clients and failed to provide an SOA at all for three others.

For two clients, Joe did not properly identify their objectives, financial situation and needs, and did not assess suitable alternatives before making recommendations. The advice itself exposed clients to risk inconsistent with their circumstances. Across three clients, the FSCP found breaches of the Code of Ethics.

This case illustrates how a handful of process gaps compound into serious regulatory findings. Skipping proper fact-finding, failing to test alternatives and overstating likely outcomes don’t just breach individual standards. Together they undermine the best interests duty at its core: advice that fits the client, not the product.

Standard three

Standard three is the Code’s conflicts provision and has been the most contentious of the Code’s standards; it frequently appeared in discussions about the Code of Ethics and its standards during the Quality of Advice Review. There is a good chance that this standard may be up for some amendments when the Treasury formally reviews the Code as part of its DBFO reform program.

The primary ethical duty in this Standard is that, if you have a conflict of interest or duty, you must disclose the conflict to the client and you must not act.  If the client wishes, you may refer the client to another relevant provider if neither you nor your principal will receive any benefits from the referral.

You will not breach standard three merely because you recommend a financial product offered by your employer or principal to a client. However, you will breach standard three if a variable component of your remuneration depends on the amount or volume you recommend of those products, because your interests will or may conflict with your duty to act in the client’s best interests.

This standard requires that:

• Advisers make an assessment as to whether their personal interests are compatible with the best interests of their client
• Advisers must ensure the advice they provide is not in conflict with personal interests or those of their licensee
• Advisers must remain aware of changing circumstances and whether that can result in conflicts of interest with some or all clients.

Disclosing to a client any advantages you would receive, and obtaining that client’s consent for those advantages, does not relieve you of the duty to comply with this standard.

Case study – a conflict of interest

Angela was an authorised representative of Brisbane-based ACME Financial Services. She recommended that numerous clients invest in the ACME Property Opportunity Fund, a managed investment scheme operated by her licensee.

An ASIC investigation found that over a three-year period, Angela recommended that the majority of her clients invest in the ACME Property Opportunity Fund, which invested in speculative property developments in the Gold and Sunshine Coasts. Angela was incentivised by her licensee to recommend the product to her clients and received bonuses based on the value of her clients’ assets held in the fund.

ASIC found that she failed to prioritise her clients’ interests above her own when recommending they invest in the fund. Further, the high-risk nature of the investment did not match her clients’ risk profiles or experience, and Angela was found to have failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into alternative financial products that could have met her clients’ needs.

Consequently, Angela was banned from providing financial services for three years.

Client care

Client Care is the second area of ethical competence and encompasses standards four to six. As with Ethical Behaviour, this area of ethical competence encapsulates the spirit of the values that underpin each of the twelve standards.

While honesty and trustworthiness continue to be crucial, the values of competence, diligence and fairness are particularly pertinent when it comes to client care; for without these, the standard of care for your clients may not comply with the best interests duty.

Figure two highlights each of the standards that fall under the competency ‘Client Care’.

Standard four

Standard four requires that financial advisers may act for a client only with that client’s free, prior and informed consent. The fundamental concept encapsulated in this standard is to ensure clients are well informed and freely consent to personal financial advice before they act.

This means that, before you start to act, you must have explained to your client, clearly and simply:

• The services that will be provided
• The terms on which those services will be provided
• The records that will be made of the services, and the privacy and confidentiality arrangements applicable to them.

‘Informed’ consent requires that the client understands and agrees to the arrangements. You will need to be satisfied of this and should have reasonable grounds to be satisfied. This agreement between adviser and client should be free from any form of coercion or pressure, from the adviser or another party.

Case study – informed consent

Nikki and Anthony sought investment advice after receiving an inheritance from Nikki’s parents. The couple had paid off their home and wanted to invest $500,000 of the remaining money. The advice was provided by Brendon at ACME Financial Advice, who had been recommended by the couple’s accountant.

One of the investments Brendon recommended was a structured product that obtained exposure to high yield fixed income through derivatives. During a period of sustained market volatility, the product experienced a significant loss; it was ultimately deemed to be unviable, and the product was wound up. This crystallised a substantial loss for the couple.

Nikki and Anthony claim they were not advised of the high-risk nature of the investment. Further, they stated they would not have consented to investing in this product had they been properly informed about the associated risks.

Brendon disputed this claim and said he was supported by the SOA he provided, one that the clients had signed. This, he believed, had adequately disclosed the risks associated with the investment.

AFCA’s case manager found that Nikki and Anthony didn’t have enough time to read and understand the SOA, since they signed it at the same meeting it was given to them.

Brendon also provided his file notes from the meeting where the investment was discussed. The notes didn’t mention any discussion of the investment’s high-risk nature. AFCA found this didn’t support Brendon’s claim that he’d verbally explained the risks and the risk/return profile of the structured product.

AFCA found in favour of the complainants. The licensee was ordered to cover the couple’s losses, plus interest at 4.5% pa, compounding annually from the determination date to the payment date.

Advisers can only act for a client with their free, prior and informed consent. By giving his clients incomplete information, Brendon’s argument that he obtained informed consent from them fell flat.

Standard five

This standard elaborates on the ‘best interest of the client’ duty in standard two and also ensures that you satisfy yourself that the client understands your advice and the products and services you recommend. This requires detailed engagement with and assistance to the client and is an essential element when it comes to providing ‘Client Care’.

This standard also emphasises the importance of the client properly understanding the advice and recommendations you give, and their implications. It requires you to be satisfied that the client understands:

• The advice and recommendations you give
• the benefits of the recommended products
• The costs involved in acquiring, holding and disposing of the recommended products
• The risks involved in acquiring, holding and disposing of the products, and how you recommend they be managed.

Advice must be clear and simple, and you must have reasonable grounds for being satisfied your client understands it.

Case study – failing to act in clients’ best interests

Bill is an adviser at ACME Financial Planning. Ray contacted Bill after receiving a call from a lead generation firm about boosting his retirement savings. Ray had $280,000 in an industry super fund and was five years from retirement.

Bill recommended that Ray roll his entire super balance into a new platform and invest the bulk of it in the Shield Master Fund, a scheme promising high, stable returns. Bill’s advice focused narrowly on the projected returns of the fund and didn’t test the recommendation against Ray’s actual objectives, financial situation or needs.

Eighteen months later Shield is frozen. Ray can’t access his super, retirement is delayed indefinitely and he has no other savings to fall back on.

Standard five requires advisers to only give advice or recommend a product if they’re satisfied it’s appropriate to the client’s likely objectives, financial situation and needs. Bill’s advice failed this test in several ways:

• He recommended an illiquid, unlisted scheme without establishing whether it suited Ray’s need for capital stability and access as he approached retirement.
• He didn’t assess the recommendation against Ray’s actual financial situation, including his reliance on this balance as his primary retirement asset and his limited timeframe to rebuild savings if the investment underperformed.
• He based the recommendation on projected returns rather than on evidence that the product matched Ray’s objectives and risk capacity.

Standard five doesn’t ask whether a product might perform well. It asks the adviser to establish, and be able to demonstrate, that the advice actually fits the client in front of them.

The Shield and First Guardian collapses show what happens when advice is built around a product’s promised return rather than a genuine assessment of suitability. An adviser can point to a plausible strategy and still fail standard five if they haven’t tested it against the client’s real objectives, financial situation and needs.

Standard six

This standard expressly requires you to consider the broad effects of the client acting on your advice and the broader, long-term interests and likely circumstances of your client.

These effects are not limited to effects on the client. For example, your advice may have implications for other family members of the client. These will need to be considered, although you will not have a duty to act in the best interest of the family members if they are not clients of you or your principal.

By way of example, any potential need for the client or one of the client’s family members to move into aged care accommodation in the near future would need to be factored into any financial advice you give the client.

Case study – failure to consider long term implications of advice

Diane is 58 and works part time. She has $340,000 in superannuation and owns her home outright with her husband Steve, who retired early due to ill health. Diane sees an adviser, Mark, after her employer offered a redundancy package and she wants advice with respect to the payout.

Mark recommends Diane contribute the full redundancy amount into super as a non-concessional contribution and invest it in a high-growth option alongside her existing balance. His advice focuses on maximising Diane’s super balance and long-term investment returns.

Unfortunately, Mark doesn’t ask about Diane’s short-term needs. Diane and her husband have been planning to renovate their bathroom and kitchen to make the house safer as they age and were counting on part of the redundancy payout to fund this. He also doesn’t consider that locking the money away in super limits Diane’s access to funds if she needs to stop working earlier than planned due to her husband’s health.

A year later, Steve has a fall and the couple need to make home modifications sooner than expected. They have no accessible savings outside super, and Diane can’t withdraw the funds without meeting a condition of release.

Standard six requires advisers to consider the broad effects of a client acting on their advice, and to take into account the client’s broader, long-term interests and likely circumstances. Mark’s advice failed this test in several ways:

• He recommended locking away funds without asking about Diane’s short-term plans or her husband’s health, both of which had a direct bearing on how accessible those funds needed to be.
• He didn’t consider what reduced flexibility would mean for a couple approaching an age where health needs can change quickly.
• He treated the advice as a standalone super strategy rather than weighing it against Diane’s whole financial picture and life circumstances.

Standard six asks advisers to step back and consider what the advice means for a client’s broader life, not just their account balance.

Ethics can be defined as the moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the manner in which they conduct an activity. In financial planning, this comes down to acting in the client’s best interests at all times, and acting with competence, honesty, integrity and fairness. Standards one to six, covering Ethical Behaviour and Client Care, capture what Australian consumers reasonably expect from financial advice professionals.

Financial advisers are required to act ethically and in the best interests of their clients at all times. The Code of Ethics has made ethical practice a binding requirement for financial advisers for six years. Continued support for the Code and the behaviour it demands will build trust in the profession and help cement financial advice as a respected profession, one that plays a genuine role in the financial security of all Australians.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.75 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.75 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism & Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———–

Notes:
[1] Explanatory statement, 11 February 2019
[2] The Hon Dr Daniel Mulino MP, National Press Club Address, 19 August 2026

The post CPD: A review of the Code of Ethics (part one) appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Build trust with your clients will contribute to running an ethical advice practice.

Trust sits at the heart of every successful financial advice relationship. In this article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, the importance of the trust relationship and its link to ethical practice is explored.

At the heart of the adviser-client dynamic lies trust, which the Oxford Dictionary defines as the conviction that someone is sincere, honest and reliable. This foundational element mirrors the very values of honesty and fairness that anchor the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics (the Code). Ultimately, the Code’s standards – such as mandating integrity and prioritising the client’s best interests – serve to put this definition into practice.

While it cannot be measured on a balance sheet or captured in a performance report, trust is one of the most valuable assets an adviser can build. It is earned through consistency, integrity and a genuine commitment to putting clients’ interests first.

For financial advisers, ethical conduct is more than a regulatory obligation, it’s the foundation upon which trust is built. The best interests duty and the Code provide an important framework, but their true value lies in how they shape everyday decisions, conversations and client relationships.

In an industry where clients often seek guidance through some of life’s most significant milestones, trust is the intangible asset that sets exceptional advice apart. It is what gives clients confidence that their adviser understands their goals, respects their circumstances and is committed to helping them achieve better outcomes.

There are times when trust has been a challenge for the financial advice profession. ASIC’s 2019 report^[1] explored consumer attitudes towards financial advice, including barriers to seeking advice. It found that while Australians recognise the expertise advisers can provide, concerns about cost, accessibility and lack of trust remain barriers for some consumers.

However, research increasingly shows that when advisers act in their clients’ best interests and deliver meaningful value, trust becomes one of the profession’s greatest differentiators. The Financial Advice Association Australia’s Value of Advice Index^[2] highlights the critical role trust plays in the adviser-client relationship. It found trust in financial advisers was reported at an all-time high, with 94% of advised clients saying they trust their adviser to act in their best interests.

When trust is misplaced

Despite high levels of trust in advisers, there are times when it is misplaced. In recent times, headlines have been dominated by the collapses of the First Guardian and Shield master funds. These provide an unfortunately clear illustration in recent history of a trusted relationship functioning perfectly on the surface while failing completely underneath.

Around eleven thousand Australians invested roughly $1.1 billion in these two funds^[3].  Many of these investors hadn’t sought out these investments themselves; instead, people were contacted by lead generators and referred to financial advisers, who then told them to roll their superannuation into a chosen fund or set up a self-managed super fund to invest in First Guardian. To the investor, this looked like ordinary advice. A professional had assessed their situation and made a recommendation. The relationship carried every outward marker of trust: a licensed adviser, a regulated superannuation system, paperwork that looked in order.

What made this possible wasn’t a single bad actor slipping through the cracks. It was a chain of gatekeepers, advisers, platforms and trustees, each one relying on the layer above or below it to have done the checking. Some platforms did their due diligence properly and refused to list these funds at all. Others didn’t, and, with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, the concentration of money flowing through a small number of advisers should have raised questions long before it did.

This is what makes the case useful for thinking about trust rather than just compliance. Nobody investing their super believed they were taking a risk on an unvetted product. They believed they were following professional advice, which is exactly the point. The mechanism of trust, an adviser telling a client what to do with money the client couldn’t independently evaluate, worked exactly as designed. What was missing was the substance that’s supposed to sit behind it: genuine, disinterested assessment of whether this was actually in the client’s best interest.

Standard 12 of the Code is worth naming directly here; it is the one standard that isn’t really about a single adviser’s conduct toward a single client. It’s about the profession policing itself, and it’s exactly this collective accountability that was missing in the Shield and First Guardian collapse. This standard asks advisers to hold their peers to account, not just themselves and the Shield and First Guardian collapse is an example of a headline grabbing trust breakdown that can have industry-wide ramifications.

Genuine trust between advisers and clients, backed by advisers holding each other to account, is what stands between isolated failures and events that damage the whole profession’s reputation.

When trust is broken

Trust is a complex topic because it is intangible and personal. The factors that build and break trust can vary from person to person. However, one certain way to breach the trust of your client is to provide them with inappropriate advice and/or fail to act in their best interests. As well as being a trust breaker, such behaviour is also a clear breach of ethical standards.

The number of consumers who believe they’ve been given inappropriate advice or advice that is not in their best interest has increased according to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). In financial year 2025, AFCA received 4,193 complaints about investment and advice, an 18 percent increase on financial year 2024, when complaints had fallen to 3,559.

Further, AFCA’s calendar year 2025 data (a separate release from the FY25 annual review) shows investment and advice complaints jumped further to 5,816, up 58 percent, largely driven by First Guardian and Shield complaints.

AFCA’s chief ombudsman and chief executive, David Locke, linked the rise directly to systemic problems in how advice is delivered, saying the complaints data points to “systemic issues in advice models, particularly where conflicts of interest and inappropriate use of SMSFs are involved.”^[4]

Claims of failing to act in the client’s best interest now dominate AFCA’s complaints in the investment and advice sector, overtaking inappropriate advice, which was the leading issue the previous year. While each case will have potentially breached a range of standards in the Code of Ethic, these cases – assuming they were upheld – will have most likely breached standards two and/or five.

Once broken, trust is notoriously difficult to rebuild, particularly in financial advice where clients depend on advisers to act with absolute honesty and integrity. This trust can be eroded in many ways. Some are intentional, such as hidden fees or misleading advice, while others are external, like market downturns or economic shifts.

Yet, even when market forces are beyond an adviser’s control, clients may still feel betrayed if they encounter poor communication, negligence or a lack of transparency. Mending these relationships requires a sustained commitment to transparency, clear communication and prioritising the client’s financial well-being.

Building trust in an advice practice

Simply put, ethical behaviour is the foundation of trust. By adhering to the twelve standards of the Code, you naturally foster deep, lasting trust with your clients.

Trust-building isn’t just a fair-weather strategy; it is forged in times of volatility. With ongoing geopolitical instability, sticky inflation, shifting interest rates and changes to CGT tax rules, your clients’ fortitude will likely be tested this year.

To safeguard your client relationships, consider these core pillars of trust:

• Ditch the jargon – meet client questions with honest, straightforward answers. Proactive communication about market risks can transform anxiety into confidence.
• Prioritise responsiveness – timely, efficient communication signals respect. Evasiveness or delays only breed doubt.
• Act as a true fiduciary – put each client’s financial wellbeing ahead of the practice’s bottom line. Deliver rigorous research and educate clients so they feel empowered rather than dependent.

Ultimately, trust is earned through consistent, integrity-driven actions. Cultivating transparency today secures the long-term client loyalty of tomorrow.

While a little dated (last updated in 2022), the CFA Institute Investor Trust Study examined investor trust dynamics that revealed three “trust enhancers” for financial advisers:

1. Technology – investors have more trust in firms that use technology effectively.
   What technology can you use in your practice to add value to clients?
2. Aligned interests – not only should you disclose and mitigate conflicts of interest (per Standard 3 of the Code of Ethics) you should also understand the client’s interests, goals and values and ensure their financial plan is appropriately aligned to them.
3. Connections – at an organisational level, the research found that investors are increasingly using brands as proxies for trust. At the adviser level, personal interactions are required to build a strong foundation.

In financial planning, client trust has been found to be the most important factor for relationship quality^[5]. Trust comes from building relationships and having deep engagement with your clients.

The degree to which clients trust their financial adviser is positively influenced by the belief that the adviser is acting in their best interests (customer oriented) and is negatively influenced by the belief that the adviser is acting out of self-interest (sales-oriented)^[6]. As well as being a trust breaker, acting out of self-interest will breach several standards in the Code, again highlighting the important connection between trust and ethical behaviour.

Figure two illustrates a model of trust developed following research undertaken for a PhD Dissertation in 2015^[7]. As well as illustrating the characteristics of trust as it pertains to financial planning, it can also be used to link the importance of ethical behaviours to the elements that constitute a trust relationship. Starting at the top and moving clockwise, we will explore this interrelationship between trust factors and ethical standards more closely.

Vulnerability/Risk – each of your clients will have periods of feeling vulnerable as they move through life. These may be personal vulnerabilities or from the influence of external factors.

The stronger the trust relationship between you, the knowledge that you have acted in their best interests means the client is less likely to be fearful during periods of market volatility or challenging personal circumstances. By providing you with informed consent, your client acknowledges the trust they are placing in you.

Faith – clients want to have faith in their adviser, want to have a trust relationship, want to know you are doing the best by them. By acting in their best interests and building a strong interpersonal connection, your client is best positioned to have faith in your role and their ability to meet their financial objectives.

Competence – while competence is implicit in most of the Code’s standards, it is explicit in standards nine and ten – all advice, not just financial product advice, must be offered with competence. From a trust perspective, this competence will be demonstrated not simply through a Statement of Advice and financial products you recommend, but also through the communications and other interactions you have with your clients.

Best interests – you don’t need research to know that failure to act in a client’s best interest is a trust killer. It is also a sign of unethical behaviour and, while it impacts a number of standards in the Code of Ethics, it is an explicit breach of standards two and five.

Honesty – honesty and ethical practice go hand in hand. Dishonesty of any type will crush the trust built between two people and, in the context of financial advice, destroy the adviser-client relationship. Depending on the nature of the dishonesty, it will likely see you breach several of the Code’s standards, in particular standard two, which requires you to act with integrity.

Accountability – it is important to demonstrate that you, and other members of your practice, are accountable for all actions in relation to your clients. Particularly in situations where things haven’t gone to plan, accountability is essential to maintaining the trust you have developed with your client.

Feeling – while trust is built over time, it is often driven by a feeling of wellbeing (or lack thereof). By acting your clients’ best interests and adhering to the standards that comprise the Code of Ethics, you’re more likely to engender and maintain a trust relationship with your clients.

Case studies

The following case studies are based on real events; however, the names of people and organisations have been changed, and some details altered. The case studies have been drawn from ASIC and AFCA. For each, potential breaches of the Code of Ethics are identified.

Case study one: Dishonest conduct

There is nothing like dishonest conduct to erode trust; if that conduct is widespread or becomes more widely known, it can also create a sense of distrust for the industry as a whole.

ACME Advice has held an AFS licence since 2017; however, the business was sold in 2024. The licence was cancelled after ASIC found ACME Advice had contravened its obligations as an AFS licensee. This was based on findings including misleading or deceptive conduct, dishonest conduct in connection with its financial services business, as well as failures in compliance, supervision and resourcing.

ASIC found that ACME Advice:

• Created a fake bond prospectus for a bond related to a major bank and used it to solicit investor funds
• Encouraged and facilitated client investment into the non-existent bond product, including arranging payment and documentation for transactions
• Obtained at least $100,000 from investors for a bond that did not exist
• Made misleading or deceptive statements on its website, including misrepresenting its experience and altering scam warnings about it that were issued by third parties
• Provided false documents to an auditor, amounting to dishonest conduct.

In its review of the case, ASIC noted it considered that ACME Advice had engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive, dishonest and inconsistent with the fundamental obligations of AFS licensees to act efficiently, honestly and fairly.

Based on these details, a case could be made that licensee ACME Advice breached the following standards in the Code.

Case study two: Unlicensed advice

Running a financial advice business without a proper licence and operating unregistered managed investment schemes are direct violations of the law. Doing so by exploiting inexperienced investors and steering their money into these schemes is a profound breach of trust.

Pari and Rohan sought advice from adviser Malcolm, who was also a director of his advice business, ACME Investments. The couple was approaching retirement and wanted advice as to how to best structure their superannuation and other assets for retirement.

The couple had become aware of Malcolm and ACME Investments via promotions the financial firm ran on social media. These promotions offered fixed returns of 25-35 percent to be paid between 12 to 36 months.

Malcolm did not disclose that the schemes he recommended were operated by ACME Investments. He recommended Pari and Rohan establish an SMSF and each roll their superannuation assets into the fund. The couple did this and then invested the proceeds in the recommended investments.

By the end of the first year, the couple realised the promised returns had failed to materialise. Although they were persuaded to extend their investment for another year, an ASIC investigation soon intervened, freezing both Malcolm’s and the firm’s assets. Later that year, ASIC launched civil action against Malcolm and ACME Investments for alleged unlicensed conduct and the operation of multiple unregistered managed investment schemes. Consequently, receivers were appointed over the schemes’ properties and their associated trusts.

The Federal Court found company director Malcolm guilty of operating unregistered managed investment schemes and carrying on a financial services business without holding an AFSL. Handing down its judgment, the Federal Court ordered Malcolm to pay $1.45 million and that he be disqualified for four years. He was also ordered to pay $52,000 of ASIC’s costs.

Additionally, the court ordered that ACME Investments, of which Malcolm was the sole shareholder and director, be wound up alongside five of the investment schemes and associated companies.

The court heard that numerous investors were referred to third parties to establish SMSFs in order to invest in the schemes. The court found that many of the 217 investors in the schemes were inexperienced investors and believed that the funds they had invested were secure and that returns would be significant. Investor losses totalled approximately $32 million.

The court’s judgment was understood to be the first time a court has ordered a pecuniary penalty against an individual for a contravention of section 601ED of the Corporations Act. This section mandates that a managed investment scheme (MIS) must be registered with ASIC if it has more than 20 members, is promoted by a business in the MIS promotion industry or is determined by ASIC to be closely related to schemes with more than 20 investors in total.  It is also the third highest civil penalty ordered against an individual in relation to a proceeding commenced by ASIC.

Malcolm’s actions potentially breached the following standards of the Code.

Case study three: Investment in the adviser’s best interest

Helen and her husband Peter had been clients of ACME Financial Planning for nine years. They trusted their adviser, Kurt and when he invited them to purchase membership in a timeshare managed investment scheme operated by his licensee, they expressed interest.

Helen and Peter attended an information session for the investment, during which Kurt provided them with information and advice about the investment. Kurt received a financial incentive for each sale, which he did not disclose to his clients.

During this information session, Helen asked Kurt if it was possible to cancel membership in the scheme at any time. She was told they could cancel the investment for an exit fee of $550; Helen and Peter relied on that statement when deciding to take up the investment. As it turned out, this statement was misleading and Kurt later denied specifying an exit fee or exit clause.

To exit the investment, Helen and Peter were required to:

• pay out the investment loan they had taken out to purchase the timeshare
• find a buyer for their portion of the timeshare
• pay an additional exit fee – one much higher than they believed they were told. This was outlined in fine print on page 42 of the scheme’s offer document.

An investigation found a range of other issues with the advice the couple received, including:

• Kurt’s file notes were incomplete and did not record all the matters referred to by Helen and Peter in their complaint.
• The statement of advice (SOA) provided to Helen and Peter was generic and not tailored specifically to them; it did not identify their objectives, nor did it provide advice reasonably likely to satisfy those objectives.
• The SOA also failed to discuss the specified risks associated with accepting the advice to invest in a non-liquid managed investment scheme on a long-term basis.

From the details provided in the case study, Kurt potentially breached the following standards.

Trust and ethical conduct aren’t separate goals for financial advisers, they’re the same goal seen from two angles. When advisers put their clients’ best interests first, maintain transparency and provide accurate, impartial advice, they’re not just meeting the requirements of the Code of Ethics, they’re building the kind of trust that long-term relationships depend on.

In a financial environment as complex as this one, trust becomes the foundation for sound decision-making, supporting both individual client outcomes and the stability of the broader system. It also has a practical benefit that’s easy to overlook. Advisers who genuinely earn their clients’ trust, rather than simply satisfying the letter of the Code, are far less likely to face the complaints, investigations and reputational damage that come when a relationship breaks down. Ethics, in this sense, isn’t a constraint on good advice. It’s what makes good advice possible in the first place.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.75 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.75 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism and Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———–

Notes:
[1] ASIC Report 627 – Financial advice: What consumers really think, August 2019
[2] FAAA, Value of Advice Index, October 2024
[3] ASIC media release 26-019MR, ASIC takes further steps to support Australians impacted by First Guardian and Shield collapse, 5 February 2026
[4] Financial Newswire, Fund collapses fuel spike in AFCA advice complaints, 24 October 2025
[5] Hunt, K., Brimble, M. and Freudenberg, B. (2011), ‘Determinants of Client-Professional Relationship Quality in the Financial Planning Setting’, Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal
[6] Bejou, D., Ennew, C. and Palmer, A. (1998), ‘Trust, ethics and relationship satisfaction’, International Journal of Bank Marketing
[6] Cull, M. (2015), The role of trust in personal financial planning, PhD Dissertation, University of Western Sydney

The post CPD: Trust – the unseen foundation of ethical financial advice appeared first on AdviserVoice.

The intersection of ethical practice and the best interests duty underpins client-focused financial advice.

In financial advice, acting in a client’s best interest isn’t just a regulatory rule, it’s the foundation of a trusting, successful partnership. This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, examines the strong links between your clients’ best interests and running an ethical advice practice.

Navigating complex financial choices can be daunting, which is why people turn to professional advisers to help secure their short- and long-term lifestyle goals. Clients place immense faith in an adviser’s expertise and integrity, expecting tailored strategies that mirror their personal values and unique circumstances. By consistently prioritising the client’s best interests, advisers do more than just build trust – they cultivate enduring relationships and solidify their own professional reputation. Ultimately, putting clients first isn’t simply an ethical duty; it is the bedrock of client satisfaction and long-term business growth.

As defined by the Australian Corporations Act 2001 (the Act), the best interests duty requires financial advisers to act in the best interests of their clients when providing personal financial advice. This duty is enshrined in Section 961B of the Act and requires advisers to take reasonable steps to ensure that the advice they provide is appropriate to the client’s individual circumstances, including their financial situation, needs and objectives.

The best interests duty is designed to ensure that financial advisers provide advice that is objective, unbiased and is tailored to the client’s needs. This fosters trust and confidence in the financial advisory industry and is of critical importance in the regulatory framework that governs the delivery of financial advice.

Best interests obligations

ASIC describes the best interests duty and related obligations as:

“…designed to ensure that retail clients receive advice that meets their objectives, financial situation and needs, and that you act in the best interests of your clients when providing advice.”

Financial planning, at its core, demands that practitioners always act in their clients’ best interests: with competence, honesty, integrity and fairness. Put simply, it’s the standard of care any of us would expect from a trusted professional.

The Quality of Advice Review (QAR) recommendations seek to modernise the best interests duty by abolishing the process-driven ‘safe harbour’ steps, replacing them with a principles-based, outcomes-focused fiduciary duty. However, as that has yet to find its way into law, the following steps as outlined in Section 961B of the Corporations Act 2001 (as amended) remain the benchmark requirement to satisfy the ‘best interests’ duty:

1. To identify the client’s financial situation, objectives and needs; these should be provided to the adviser by the client.
2. To identify the subject matter of the advice sought by the client (whether explicitly or implicitly).
3. To identify the client’s relevant circumstances – the objectives, financial situation and needs that would reasonably be considered as relevant to the advice sought on the identified subject matter (i.e. the client’s relevant circumstances).
4. To ensure this information is complete and correct and make reasonable enquiries should be made if gaps or inconsistencies are apparent.
5. To assess whether you have the expertise required to provide the client advice on the subject matter sought and, if not, decline to provide the advice.
6. When considering the advice sought, whether it would be reasonable to consider recommending a financial product. If a financial product is deemed relevant, a recommendation should only be made after thoroughly investigating the most appropriate products relevant to the client’s circumstances.
7. When advising the client, the financial adviser must base all judgements on the client’s relevant circumstances.
8. Take any other step that, at the time the advice is provided, would reasonably be regarded as being in the best interests of the client, given the client’s relevant circumstances.

Number eight is a last catch-all statement that encapsulates the spirit of the legislation; regardless of the client’s requirements, the advice must be underpinned by knowledge of the client and their circumstances. While the best interests duty applies to retail clients, a similar fiduciary duty is required for dealings with wholesale clients. To meet obligations under section 961B of the Corporations Act 2001, is indisputably to act ethically in all dealings with clients.

A failure to act in a client’s best interests would not only breach section 961B of the Corporations Act 2001, it would also breach several standards in the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics (Code) notably:

Best interests and the ethical practice

Most professionals enter their field with good intentions and a genuine commitment to ethical practice. And while ethics can sometimes occupy a grey area, putting the client first is rarely one of them.

For financial advisers, this obligation has a name – the best interests duty – and it carries real weight. Enshrined in the Code of Ethics (figure one), it requires advisers to place their clients’ needs above their own, those of their practice, or their licensee. In practice, this means delivering advice that is appropriate, personalised to each client’s financial situation and goals, and free from conflicts of interest.

Figure one: Code of Ethics – Standards

Ethical behaviour

Client care

Quality process

Professional commitment

Acting in clients’ best interests is the foundation of ethical financial advice. Because financial decisions can shape lives for decades, clients place enormous trust in their advisers. They trust that your guidance is genuine, considered and focused squarely on their wellbeing.

This duty also serves as a critical safeguard. By requiring that recommendations are based solely on what is right for the client, it protects against conflicts of interest and the potential for exploitation. That protection matters beyond the individual – it builds confidence in the advice profession and empowers clients to make informed decisions, knowing the guidance they receive is free from bias.

The benefits extend further still. When advisers consistently prioritise their clients, misconduct decreases, professional reputations strengthen and the industry as a whole moves closer to the regulatory ideals of fairness, transparency and consumer protection.

In practice, meeting this standard means being transparent, honest and diligent in every client interaction. These are also some of the values on which the Code of Ethics is based. It means taking the time to genuinely understand each client’s circumstances, and recommending strategies – and where appropriate, financial products – that truly serve their interests. It also means that advisers commit to ongoing education and stay current and competent, so the advice provided to clients continues to meet both professional and regulatory benchmarks.

While enshrined in law and in the Code of Ethics, there are actions all advisers can take to support practice-wide ethical behaviour, maintain a strong ethical business culture and ensure client’s best interests always come first. These include:

1. Establish a practice-wide code of conduct

One which encapsulates your business’s values and aligns with the Code of Ethics. A well-crafted code sets clear expectations for how your people behave in carrying out their duties, with client-first thinking at its heart.

Critically, this isn’t a document to file and forget. Every member of your team should have a thorough understanding of all twelve standards within the Code of Ethics, not just in general terms, but in ways that are relevant to their specific role. When staff can draw a direct line between each standard and their day-to-day responsibilities, putting clients’ interests first becomes less a compliance exercise and more an embedded part of how your practice operates.

2. Lead by example

Employees will look to the key individuals in the practice to understand what conduct is and isn’t acceptable. Senior advisers and personnel set the tone for ethics in the practice; accordingly, they need to demonstrate your business’s code of conduct in all they say and do. When the team sees you putting your clients’ best interests first, they are more likely to do the same.

3. Invest in workplace training

Workplace training is a positive way to ensure all staff understand both the practice’s values and the obligations of the Code of Ethics. Provide regular training sessions on ethical behaviour, regulatory compliance, conflict of interest and integrity. Training should cover both theoretical aspects and practical, real-world scenarios.

Case studies are a powerful way to bring your code of conduct to life. Walking your team through scenarios where a client’s best interests could be compromised helps reinforce expected standards and draws a clear distinction between what does and doesn’t align with your practice’s values.

Workshops and role-playing exercises take this a step further, placing staff in realistic situations where ethical dilemmas might arise and guiding them through how to respond in line with the Code of Ethics. Weaving this kind of training into regular team meetings, drawing on case studies that reflect common challenges across the financial planning industry, keeps ethical practice front of mind and ensures it remains an ongoing conversation rather than a one-off tick-box exercise.

The AFCA website is a good source of cases and decisions made by AFCA to form the basis of discussion. You can search specifically for decisions related to failing to act in a client’s best interests, as well as other issues not aligned with ethical behaviour.

It’s important that ethics training is not a one off; ideally, training should teach team members to make good decisions that are compliant with the law and consistent with your practice’s values.

4. Make ethical behaviour a KPI

Ethical behaviour should be a key performance indicator (KPI); by reinforcing and potentially rewarding staff for embodying your values, adhering to your practice’s code of conduct and behaving in a way that makes ethical behaviour central to their work will create an ethical practice. Although a values-driven KPI can be harder to quantify than one with specific and measurable outcomes, it will highlight to staff the importance of values and ethics to your business.

5. Ensure clear communication channels

Ensure clear communication channels within your practice. Encourage open dialogue to create a culture of transparency where employees can discuss ethical concerns without fear of retaliation. Create regular feedback loops, whereby employees provide honest feedback about the processes, conversations and client interactions to ensure you are aware of all issues as they arise. Surprises can potentially compromise your business.

Bringing your peers on the ethical journey is important. The licensee and adviser will carry the responsibility of any breach of the Code, but implementing strategies such as those outlined above can help mitigate the risk of breaching ethical standards.

Consider enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for ethical violations to make clear that breaches are taken seriously. Define relevant disciplinary actions for unethical behaviour and apply them consistently across all levels of the practice. Consistency is key; without it, credibility and fairness are quickly undermined.

When integrity, education, transparency and accountability are genuinely embedded in your culture, something important follows. Colleagues align around a shared set of ethical standards, trust builds from the inside out, and the practice becomes one where putting every client’s interests first is simply the way things are done.

Case studies

The following case studies are based on real events; however, the names of people and organisations have been changed, and some details altered. The case studies have been drawn from ASIC or AFCA. For each, potential breaches of the Code of Ethics are identified. These case studies represent examples of those that would be of value for the business to discuss as part of its workplace training.

Case study one: Failure to act in clients’ best interests #1

The complainants are corporate trustees of a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF), directors Linda and Terry. The couple sought and received personal advice from the financial firm ACME Super Advice. They were a client of ACME Super Advice from March 2011 to January 2024, during which time the couple received an investment strategy and investment advice in relation to their SMSF investments.

Linda and Terry claimed that ACME Super Advice provided inappropriate advice because the financial firm was conflicted in making investment recommendations. As a result, the couple claimed their SMSF suffered significant losses.

An AFCA investigation found that ACME Super Advice did not provide appropriate advice, nor did it act in the complainants’ best interests. It was found that ACME Super Advice:

• failed to provide advice within the risk parameters it set
• failed to diversify the portfolio’s ‘growth’ assets, instead recommending a portfolio heavily weighted towards residential property
• recommended an overly high proportion of related entity residential property investments without justification.

ACME Super Advice failed to establish that it prioritised the complainants’ interests over its own. The proportion of related entity investments compared to non-related entity investments was found to be excessive. The related entity investments recommended by the financial firm carried significantly more risk than Linda and Terry understood to be the case and were not aligned with the couple’s risk profile. Finally, the investigation found the fees to be excessive when compared to alternative investment products.

The determination noted that ACME Super Advice failed to act in the best interests of their clients and breached the following sections of the Corporations Act 2001 – 961B(1) best interests duty; 961B(2) failure to demonstrate best interests by following ‘safe harbour’ steps; 961G it would be reasonable to conclude that the advice is appropriate to the client had the provider satisfied the best interests duty.

AFCA found that the financial firm’s failure to provide appropriate advice and act in the complainants’ best interests resulted in Linda and Terry’s SMSF being $885,545 worse off. Accordingly, the final determination was that ACME Super Advice was required to compensate the complainants for losses incurred.

The adviser and ACME Super Advice potentially breached the following standards in the Code of Ethics:

Case study two: Failure to act in clients’ best interests #2

Simon was a financial planner and the sole director of ACME Wealth Services, an advice practice holding both an Australian Financial Services Licence and an Australian Credit Licence. Simon had operated within the financial services industry for a number of years, having previously been an authorised representative of a large dealer group, during which time he was also the sole director of ACME Financial Services Pty Ltd, a corporate authorised representative of that dealer group.

An ASIC investigation uncovered that, on three occasions, Simon relied on service agreements that included client signatures that ASIC determined had not been provided by the clients themselves. In addition, ASIC found that Simon had created, or caused to be created, file notes that did not accurately reflect actual client interactions. The purpose of both courses of conduct was the same: to justify the charging of ongoing service fees. Clients were being charged for services that could not be legitimately substantiated, and the documentation used to support those charges had been fabricated or altered.

ASIC determined that, having regard to this conduct, Simon did not meet the statutory requirements to be a fit and proper person to participate in the credit and financial services industries.

In this case, Simon was potentially in breach of the following ethical standards:

Case study three: Inappropriate advice #1

The complainants, Judy and David, were 72 and 75 at the time of seeing adviser Carolyn, an authorised representative of financial firm ACME Advice.

Carolyn recommended that Judy and David invest in a Capital Protected Fund (the A Fund). At the time David had $450,000 and Judy had $345,000 to invest.

Judy and David were classified by Carolyn as ‘Assertive – Balanced’ investors. This risk profile resulted in a recommended asset allocation of 30% defensive assets and 70% growth assets. The complainants say they understood from Carolyn that the A Fund was capital protected, and that they would get the highest return for the year locked in for the remainder of the period.

They later found out that they would only get the return available at the anniversary of the product. They claimed had they known this was the way the product worked, they would not have invested because returns were significantly lower than they had been led to expect. Judy and David also claimed that Carolyn charged higher fees than initially declared.

An investigation by AFCA determined that Carolyn failed to adequately explain how the A Fund worked. Had the complainants properly understood the level of uncertainty associated with the product, they would not have invested.

The determination also noted that Carolyn failed the best interests duty by not providing appropriate risk profiling and advice to her clients. Finally, AFCA accepted that the complainants would have been conservatively invested if appropriately advised, which resulted in a total loss of $97,495.

AFCA’s determination found in favour of the complainants; total compensation equating to the couple’s loss, plus 1.5% interest per annum compounding annually from the determination to the date of payment, was ordered.

By inadequately describing how the product worked and failing to provide appropriate risk profiling and advice to her clients, Carolyn potentially breached the following standards in the Code of Ethics:

Case study four: Inappropriate advice #2

Tanya was an experienced financial adviser with ACME Financial Planning. She was subject to a series of client complaints and an investigation by ASIC. The investigation revealed a pattern of misconduct, which resulted in severe consequences for Tanya’s career and her reputation within the financial services industry.

ASIC identified the following issues:

• Inappropriate recommendations – Tanya demonstrated a strong tendency to make recommendations not aligned with her clients’ risk profiles. ASIC noted concerns about the subsequent suitability of the investment strategies she proposed, potentially exposing clients to excessive risk.
• Non-compliant Statements of Advice – ASIC’s investigation discovered that Tanya had provided some clients with non-compliant SoAs, which can hinder clients’ ability to make informed decisions about their finances.
• Inadequate record keeping – there were repeated instances of Tanya’s failure to maintain adequate records. Proper record-keeping is essential in the financial services industry to ensure transparency, accountability and regulatory compliance. The lack of proper documentation raised concerns about the integrity of Tanya’s practices.
• Failure to act in her clients’ best interests – Tanya breached this most fundamental obligation on several occasions.

As a result of ASIC’s investigation, Tanya was banned from providing financial services for a period of five years.

According to the information provided, Tanya potentially breached the following standards:

Acting in every client’s best interests is the cornerstone of any ethical financial advice practice. It fosters trust, builds long-lasting relationships and safeguards the integrity of the profession. When clients feel confident that their adviser is genuinely in their corner, they are better placed to make informed financial decisions – and that empowerment leads to sustainable outcomes for both the client and the business.

The Code of Ethics exists not as a burden, but as a framework that supports advisers in doing what most entered the profession to do in the first place: make a meaningful difference in their clients’ financial lives. Its twelve standards provide clear guidance on what ethical practice looks like in action, and when embraced wholeheartedly rather than treated as a compliance obligation, they become a genuine competitive advantage.

In an industry where trust is everything, the advisers who consistently place their clients first are the ones who stand apart. They attract clients who value integrity, retain them through the strength of the relationship, and build practices with reputations that speak for themselves. Referrals follow. Loyalty follows. Longevity follows.

Ultimately, ethical practice is not a constraint on success. It is the foundation of it. For financial advisers, the best interests duty and the Code of Ethics are more than regulatory requirements. They are a professional standard worth upholding, a commitment to clients worth keeping and a standard of care the industry should be proud to deliver.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.75 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.75 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism and Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

The post CPD: Ethics and client best interests appeared first on AdviserVoice.

As Australia’s population ages, the demand for aged care advice will inevitably surge.

Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) shows that Australia’s population aged 65 and over is projected to reach 22% – or 8.8 million people – by 2057, reinforcing the need for specialist aged care advice. This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, explores some of the issues around ethics and providing financial advice to ageing Australians.

Australia is an ageing nation. One in five Australians are aged 65 and over^[1]. That does not include the tail end of the ‘baby boomers’, nor Gen X snapping on their heels. The percentage of the population aged 65 and over has increased from 12% at 30 June 1994 to 17% 30 June 2024^[2].

Driven by improved nutrition, medical advancements and healthier lifestyles, Australian life expectancy now extends well into the 80s, underscoring a critical need for structured aged care advice. However, while post-retirement financial planning traditionally prioritises wealth decumulation and immediate lifestyle funding, long-term aged care strategies remain significantly underemphasised.

The aged care system is a complex web of providers, agencies and changing regulations that often overwhelms families during a period of high vulnerability. This makes access to accurate, conflict-free professional advice vital to safeguarding the best interests of older Australians.

The inherent complexity of the Australian aged care system has been amplified by the introduction of the Aged Care Act 2024 and its funding reforms that came into effect on 1 November 2025. In the wake of these reforms, Australians will increasingly rely on personalised guidance to make informed decisions tailored to their unique family circumstances. Professional support will be essential in helping Australians navigate their aged care funding options effectively.^[3]

Aged care in Australia

While the aged care system is designed to support older Australians, it remains riddled with complexities and is challenging for families to navigate. These complexities make it difficult to both access the required support and understand the financial intricacies of that support.

There are two main pathways in the system, at-home support and residential aged care, funded by a mix of government support and personal contributions. However, it’s not as simple as making an application – the federal government’s own report, released the same day as the federal budget, revealed that it takes, on average, 12 months to get a spot in an aged care home or secure at-home support^[4].

Further, senate estimates figures show that in December 2025, there were more than 230,000 Australians currently on the wait list for aged care, either for an assessment or a package at their approved level.

Care in the home – designed to help older Australians stay independent for longer, the Support at Home program (formerly In-Home Care program) provides a coordinated care plan tailored to meet the recipient’s specific needs. While it sounds great in theory, the application process is onerous and there’s a substantial waiting list for both assessment and allocation of a package.

Care in a residential aged care facility – this provides accommodation, daily care and lifestyle services within an aged care home. This can be a permanent move or a short-term stay (respite care). Permanent care is intended for those who can no longer live at home due to increased care needs.

As most aged care advice focuses on access to and funding residential aged care, in-home support services are not discussed further in this article.

A major reason people access aged care advice is the complexity of the fee structures associated with residential aged care. The following provides a brief overview of the fee structure, which – like many government programs – is subject to regular review and change. Major changes were implemented as part of the Aged Care Act 2024. The same fee structure is applicable whether the aged care facility is run by local or state government, a charitable organisation or corporate.

Aged care fees and the Aged Care Act 2024

The overhaul of residential aged care fees in the Aged Care Act 2024 represented a significant structural shift. The rationale for these changes stems directly from the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the findings of the Aged Care Taskforce. The core objective was to create a dual-benefit solution: protecting the financial dignity of older Australians while ensuring the entire aged care sector does not collapse under escalating costs^[5].

The major change to aged care fees introduced by the 2024 Act is drawing a line between what the government should pay for and what the individual should pay for.

The Act established that health and clinical care is a universal right. Therefore, the government funds 100 percent of clinical care, which includes nursing, medical management and allied health.

However, everyday living and accommodation costs are co-contributed; the rationale is that whether you live in your own home or a residential facility, you still have to pay for food, laundry, utilities and rent.

So, under the new act, the former ‘Means Tested Care Fee’ has been split into two distinct, means-tested categories:

• The hotelling contribution – a co-contribution to daily lifestyle and facility operational costs, capped at $22.15 per day
• The non-clinical care contribution – this covers personal care, such as showering, dressing and leisure activities, capped at $107.32 per day.

A significant change is the introduction of measures to inject capital directly into the infrastructure of aged care homes:

• RAD retention – aged care providers are now permitted to retain a small portion of a resident’s Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD). Providers can retain two percent per year for up to five years, a total maximum of 10 percent of the RAD. Given many RADs are over one million dollars, this can represent a sizable amount. This only applies to people entering aged care from 1 November 2025.
• Increased price caps – the maximum room price cap was raised from $550,000 to approximately $750,000 and indexed to inflation. This is the maximum price a provider can charge without seeking approval from the Pricing Authority.

The Act also introduced the ‘no worse off’ principle; anyone who was already in residential care prior to 12 September 2024 is strictly grandfathered. Their contribution arrangements stay exactly the same. As with any change, there are a lot of caveats around the new payments, and which payment applies to what person – this only adds to the already complex structures.

What are the costs?

The following is a summary of the primary aged care fees – specifically, the cost of the room. The reality involves far more complexity and will vary from client to client. This illustrates the importance of personal finance advice when it comes to accessing aged care services.

Prior to moving into a residential aged care home, the resident must agree on a room price with the provider. It’s important to note that prices will vary from one provider to the next. Whether an individual qualifies for government assistance to cover these accommodation costs, in full or in part, is determined by a formal means assessment.

There are three options for payment.

A refundable lump sum (RAD or RAC)

There are 2 types of lump sum, depending on the outcome of your client’s means assessment:

• Refundable accommodation deposit (RAD): This is when your client pays the full amount and is the accommodation price agreed with the provider.
• Refundable accommodation contribution (RAC): This is when the government helps with the costs and is worked out by the provider based on the daily accommodation contribution (DAC).

It is important to know that a refundable lump sum is counted as an asset in the aged care means assessment, even in the event it is paid by a family member. This means that paying a lump sum can affect overall fees charged by the provider.

A daily payment (DAP or DAC)

There are two types of daily payments, depending on the outcome of the client’s means assessment:

• Daily accommodation payment (DAP): this is when your client pays the full amount themselves and is the accommodation price agreed with your provider. Daily accommodation payments are indexed on 20 March and 20 September each year.
• Daily accommodation contribution (DAC): this is when the government helps with the costs; the amount is determined by Services Australia based on the client’s means assessment.

Daily payments are akin to rent payments and are not refunded when your client leaves care.

A combination of refundable lump sum and daily payments

This is when your client combines the two types of payments to meet their costs. The split of the combination can be made in the way that works best for the client’s financial situation.

The financial commitment of residential aged care extends beyond the initial room price. Once a resident moves in, they face ongoing daily fees for accommodation, care and hospitality services. Under the reforms that rolled out from 1 November 2025, the government restructured these fees to increase transparency. At the same time, a stronger user-pays model was introduced, one that scales based on an individual’s personal wealth.

The government’s website My Aged Care provides more information about aged care costs and how they are calculated.

Aged care advice

Access to quality aged care financial advice is incredibly important when it comes to making well-informed aged care decisions. Clients – and often, their families – need to understand the complexities of fees and costs and how to best structure finances to afford the required care.

However, there’s an ongoing problem with aged care advice, one beyond the inherent complexities in accessing and paying for care.

It’s an issue for the broader advice industry as well as extremely challenging for the clients and their families. The issue is this: a substantial amount of ‘aged care advice’ is provided by individuals who are unlicensed, not authorised, not on ASIC’s Financial Adviser Register. It’s provided by a range of people, professionals such as lawyers or accountants, individuals working in the aged care sector or with ancillary services. In some cases, aged care advice is provided by former (i.e. deregistered) financial advisers.

It can be difficult for families to source the right help and to understand the differences in the advice on offer. Are they receiving information only, general advice or comprehensive personal advice?

 Information versus advice

In many cases, the ‘client’ is the family of the person entering aged care and the move is often event driven. As the event is often negative – an illness, a fall, the death of a partner – emotions and stress levels can run high.

It is not unusual that the seekers of advice often don’t have the luxury of time or the emotional clarity to check the credentials of someone offering aged care advice, let alone ensure the guidance provided is in their loved one’s best interests.

Of course, there’s a lot of information that can be imparted without crossing the line into advice. This includes:

• explaining aged care fees (including calculations for an individual’s fee scenario)
• explaining Centrelink entitlements
• sourcing appropriate temporary or permanent accommodation.

If the professional in question is simply providing information without affecting any decision making, it’s not advice.

However, once the provider of aged care information influences an action, this likely crosses the line into personal advice. This might include:

• discussing options about how the client could pay for the aged care fees, or
• making recommendations about payment options.

However, even where a recommendation isn’t made, simply influencing the client to decide about a specific option, product or product class falls into the realm of personal product advice. The Corporations Act 2001 outlines two steps to determine whether a person is providing personal product advice:

1. The person providing the information or advice knows personal information about the client
2. There is a suggestion or inference to make a change in respect to assets or products, or a class of products, and influencing the client’s decision about those assets.

Finding and funding accommodation is usually only the first step in holistic personal financial advice; there is often financial, tax, social security and estate planning considerations. These should be the purview of a registered financial adviser providing aged care advice.

For many consumers, the difference between information and advice is not clear. Decisions can be made in haste when those making them are emotional or vulnerable. Given the expenses associated with aged care, decisions about the advice may be driven by cost without understanding the implications of following a recommended course of action.

Unregistered advisers may be cheaper because:

• they don’t have applicable professional indemnity insurance
• they aren’t members of AFCA, thereby denying their clients an opportunity for redress
• they aren’t required to have memberships of professional associations
• they avoid ongoing educational requirements.

Importantly, an unregistered adviser is not bound by the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics (Code of Ethics).

Ethics and aged care advice

A registered financial adviser offering aged care advice is obliged to adhere to the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics (figure two).

The Code of Ethics was introduced to provide a layer of consumer protection and engender trust in the financial advice profession. The Code of Ethics requires financial advisers to meet their obligations in the law in respect of the advice provided to each client, including:

• The best interests duty
• The appropriateness of advice
• Prioritisation of client’s interests
• Additional requirements for product replacement recommendations
• Australian Taxation laws.

Further, licensed financial advisers are required to:

• Know your client
• Work out their situation, objectives, needs and their financial literacy level
• Have a reasonable basis for advice
• Know your product and the consequences of your advice, and ensure the advice is appropriate for the client
• Comply with statement of advice (SOA) requirements.

Those individuals who provide aged care advice (not just information) and are not registered advisers operate outside of this Code and the requirements outlined above. This has negative implications for consumers.

At best, unlicensed aged care advice can have mediocre client outcomes. At its worst, it can lead to elder abuse, in particular financial elder abuse. This is defined by the World Health Organisation as “The illegal or improper exploitation or use of funds or other resources of the older person” and is the subject of an earlier article in this year’s Ethics Series, Ethical financial advice for vulnerable clients – part two.

Registered financial advisers who provide aged care advice are licensed and regulated under the Corporations Act. Among other protections, their clients can take complaints to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

Unregistered aged care advice is both a consumer protection and ethical issue for the industry. Although some clients receive personal product advice, they are not eligible for the protections available to clients of registered financial advisers, including access to AFCA.

Although not beholden to the Code of Ethics, unregistered advisers providing aged care advice fail to deliver important outcomes for clients that can be unpacked in reference to the Code and its standards, as follows:

The lack of mandatory registration for aged care advisers raises significant consumer protection concerns, as it leaves the sector without a formal mechanism to verify qualifications and expertise. This regulatory void exposes vulnerable families to advisers who may lack the necessary training to navigate complex aged care needs. Consequently, consumers face an increased risk of receiving inadequate financial planning and securing unsuitable care arrangements.

Furthermore, exempting these advisers from the Code of Ethics removes critical safeguards that mandate transparency, conflict management and acting in the client’s best interests. Without these binding ethical standards, accountability is severely diminished, creating an environment where advisers might prioritise personal or institutional gains over client welfare. This absence of oversight significantly heightens the risk of biased, misleading or self-serving financial advice.

Finally, the intricate and constantly changing nature of the aged care system demands highly specialised knowledge, particularly regarding its interplay with financial planning. Without robust regulatory and ethical frameworks, consumers are uniquely vulnerable to outdated or inaccurate advice that fails to address their specific needs. Ultimately, this lack of oversight undermines public confidence and can lead to severe, long-lasting financial and emotional repercussions for families.

Case studies

The following case studies highlight the benefits of obtaining aged care advice from registered financial advisers through the lens of the standards comprising the Code of Ethics.

Case study one: Moving into aged care

Barry and Maureen, a couple in their early 80s, needed to arrange residential aged care for Barry due to his deteriorating cognition. Following a formal dementia diagnosis, Maureen and their children realised he needed professional care. Seeking guidance, they turned to an aged care adviser recommended by their neighbour. They were unaware that the recommended adviser was not a registered financial adviser.

The adviser, Nigel, provided Maureen with a detailed costing of the aged care options for Barry and suggested they sell the couple’s residence to pay for the Refundable Accommodation Deposit. They could then use the remainder of the sale proceeds plus their savings to buy a small unit for Maureen. While advice about buying or selling property, including the family home, is exempt from AFS provisions, the advice pertaining to the use of the couple’s savings is not.

However, Maureen was unhappy with the advice. She didn’t want to move; the couple had already downsized from their farm and moved into town – where else could she go? She was close to two of her three children, comfortable in her community and president of the local CWA. The downsized home was selected for its garden, and she didn’t want to have to give that up.

Encouraged by their children, Maureen and Barry sought a second opinion, this time from a registered financial adviser from ACME Aged Care Advice. Their new adviser, Jackie, explained that as clients of a registered financial adviser, they had a range of protections – and she had training and education related to the aged care sector. Further, she regularly undertook professional development to ensure she was familiar with current legislation and other changes to the sector.

Jackie helped the family understand the intricacies of the aged care fees they would incur and explain how they had changed post 1 November 2025. While the family had some understanding, what they understood to be the likely fees had changed. Jackie developed a strategy to ensure the family home would be retained, so Maureen could continue to enjoy her home, garden and community. Importantly, it ensured she had somewhere to live once Barry moved into aged care.

Jackie was able to recommend several strategies to rearrange the couple’s investments. She presented two funding options to determine which worked best for them. With tailored advice and support, the couple was able to fund Barry’s aged care needs and implement a financial plan that both prioritised their long-term wellbeing and considered all elements of their financial situation, including Centrelink entitlements and estate planning.

As a registered financial adviser, Jackie is bound by the Code of Ethics. Her conduct in this case study saw her meet her requirements under the Code, specifically in relation to the following standards:

Case study two: Meeting aged care needs

Evelyn, a 79-year-old widow living alone, suffered a severe stroke that left her with permanent mobility challenges. Following an extended stay in an acute stroke unit, her multidisciplinary medical team advised her two sons that returning home independently was no longer safe, recommending a transition into permanent residential aged care instead.

Evelyn’s sons, who acted as her joint Powers of Attorney – one managing her medical decisions and the other overseeing her financial affairs – promptly scheduled a meeting with David, Evelyn’s long-standing financial adviser. Recognising that aged care involves highly complex, specialised regulatory frameworks, David immediately brought his colleague Sarah into the consultation. While both operated under the same financial services licensee, Sarah had completed advanced postgraduate certifications in aged care financial strategies to navigate the intricacies of means testing, payment options and the impact on Centrelink benefits.

Working collaboratively, Sarah and David modelled several funding scenarios for the brothers. A core constraint was Evelyn’s deep sentimental attachment to her family home; she refused to sell it, and her sons noted the property required significant deferred maintenance before it could fetch an acceptable market price anyway.

To solve this, Sarah proposed funding the transition via a Daily Accommodation Payment (DAP) instead of a lump-sum Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD). David then restructured Evelyn’s existing investment portfolio to generate a predictable, tax-effective monthly income stream dedicated entirely to covering the DAP and ongoing care fees. Ultimately, the coordinated approach ensured the brothers fully understood the financial commitments, fee structures and cash flow mechanics required to secure their mother’s quality of care without selling her home.

Working together, Sarah and David were able to provide Evelyn and her sons with positive outcomes, which ensured Evelyn’s care needs were met and her financial security assured. Their conduct in this case study saw the advisers meet Evelyn’s requirements under the Code of Ethics, specifically in relation to the following standards:

As Australia’s population ages, the demand for aged care advice will inevitably surge. Navigating this system often requires rapid decision-making during a highly stressful family crisis, making access to reliable, expert guidance more critical than ever.

However, the current regulatory ‘grey area’ allows unregistered, unregulated individuals to provide aged care advice while remaining exempt from the Code of Ethics. This lack of oversight poses severe risks to consumers, leaving them vulnerable to unqualified operators and biased recommendations that can jeopardise both their financial security and peace of mind. To safeguard vulnerable families, policymakers and industry stakeholders must close these loopholes and mandate that aged care advice be delivered exclusively by registered financial advisers.

Partnering with a specialist aged care financial adviser, either through a trusted external referral network or as an embedded specialist within the practice, can protect and enhance an advice firm’s client base as the wealth transition accelerates.

By integrating this specialised expertise, practices can seamlessly guide multi-generational families through highly stressful care transitions, preventing costly financial mistakes and securing the broader family’s loyalty. Ultimately, a proactive approach transforms a looming operational challenge into a powerful retention tool, positioning the practice as a holistic, indispensable partner for ageing clients and their beneficiaries.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.75 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.75 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism and Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Aged Care (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———-

Notes:
[1] National Ageing Research Institute demographic briefing
[2] https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/profile-of-australias-population
[3] The Risk of Unregulated Aged Care Advice: Protecting Older Australians and Ensuring Quality Advice, Aged Care Steps, January 2026
[4] Aged Care Act 2024 Wait Times Report: Residential care and Support at Home 1 November 2025 – 31 March 2026, published 12 May 2026
[5] https://www.agedcarequality.gov.au/providers/reform-changes-providers/about-new-aged-care-act-and-key-changes-providers

The post CPD: Aged care advice and ethics appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Fiduciary duty is more than a regulatory hurdle; it is the moral and professional backbone of a sustainable financial advice practice.

Today’s financial adviser stands as a true professional partner; a fiduciary whose primary purpose is to empower clients to achieve their life goals and financial objectives. This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, examines the importance of fiduciary duty and ethics in the Australian financial advice practice.

Ethical financial advice is an essential aspect of ensuring the wellbeing and financial success of both individuals and businesses. Within this, fiduciary duty plays a crucial role in establishing trust, integrity and client-focused decision making.

As defined by the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment (UN PRI), fiduciary duty exists to ensure that those who manage other people’s money act in the interests of beneficiaries, rather than serving their own interests. For financial professionals, fiduciary duty serves as a guiding principle that compels them to put their clients’ best interests first.

At its core, a fiduciary duty is a powerful commitment to partnership. It is the gold standard of professional relationships, ensuring that every recommendation, strategy and conversation is filtered through a single lens: the client’s best interest. This isn’t just about avoiding conflicts; it’s about the proactive pursuit of the best possible outcomes for those who entrust you with their futures.

Fiduciary duty defined

A fiduciary duty is a fundamental legal and ethical responsibility that financial advisers, investment professionals and others in the financial services industry owe to their clients – it’s a promise to put their clients first. For financial advisers, this means moving beyond basic compliance to act with absolute loyalty and transparency. It is a legal and ethical mandate to prioritise clients’ financial well-being above their own personal gain or profits for the practice or licensee.

To honour this duty, an adviser must:

• Apply expert judgment and due diligence to ensure every recommendation aligns with each client’s specific objectives, goals and risk tolerance
• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest so the advice clients receive is unbiased and free from hidden incentives
• Exercise sound judgment, due diligence and integrity when managing assets on behalf of their clients.

Ultimately, this duty is the cornerstone of the adviser-client relationship. By aligning directly with the twelve standards (figure one) that comprise the Financial Planner and Adviser Code of Ethics (Code of Ethics), the fiduciary standard transforms financial advice from a simple transaction into a trusted, long-term partnership built on accountability.

ASIC describes the best interests duty and related obligations as:

“…designed to ensure that retail clients receive advice that meets their objectives, financial situation and needs, and that you act in the best interests of your clients when providing advice.”

As it relates to financial advisers, this can be articulated as always acting in the client’s best interests, acting with competence, honesty, integrity and fairness…words that appear in the value statements that underpin the Code of Ethics.

In July 2013, the introduction of FOFA included an amendment to the Corporations Act 2001 that enshrined the best interests duty into law and extended the existing fiduciary duty financial advisers owe to clients.

This duty encompasses the know your client requirement, the obligation to understand recommended products and the mandate to keep the client’s interests central to all advice. Alongside these amendments, strict penalties for non-compliance were introduced, including banning and disqualification orders.

Section 961B of the Corporations Act 2001 (as amended) lists the actions advisers must undertake to satisfy the best interests standard. In summary, these are^[1]:

1. To identify the client’s financial situation, objectives and needs; these should be provided to the adviser by the client.
2. To identify the subject matter of the advice sought by the client (whether explicitly or implicitly).
3. To identify the client’s relevant circumstances – the objectives, financial situation and needs that would reasonably be considered as relevant to the advice sought on the identified subject matter (i.e. the client’s relevant circumstances).
4. To ensure this information is complete and correct, and to make reasonable enquiries if gaps or inconsistencies are apparent.
5. To assess whether you have the expertise required to provide the client advice on the subject matter sought and, if not, decline to provide the advice.
6. When considering the advice sought, whether it would be reasonable to consider recommending a financial product. If a financial product is deemed relevant, a recommendation should only be made after thoroughly investigating the most appropriate products relevant to the client’s circumstances.
7. When advising the client, the financial adviser must base all judgements on the client’s relevant circumstances.
8. Take any other step that, at the time the advice is provided, would reasonably be regarded as being in the best interests of the client, given the client’s relevant circumstances.

Number eight is a catch all statement that encapsulates the spirit of the legislation. Regardless of a client’s specific requests, all advice must be rooted in a deep understanding of their unique profile and circumstances. While the best interests duty is a formal requirement for retail clients, a comparable fiduciary standard governs professional conduct when dealing with wholesale clients.

A failure to act in a client’s best interests would not only breach section 961B of the Corporations Act 2001, but it would also breach several ethical standards, including:

ASIC notes that the best interests duty and related obligations are designed to ensure that retail clients receive advice that meets their objectives, financial situation and needs, and that you act in the best interests of your clients when providing advice.

ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 175 AFS licensing: Financial product advisers—Conduct and disclosure  (November 2024) contains guidance about:

• How the best interests duty applies to personal advice (both comprehensive and scaled advice)
• Features of good quality advice
• The ‘safe harbour’ provisions, defining how to comply with the best interests duty
• The modified best interests duty and when it applies
• Use of processes to provide advice
• How to recognise a possible conflict of interest, and
• The conflicts priority rule and how it applies to products or services provided by a related party.

A practical fiduciary framework

There are several practical measures your advice practice can implement to ensure your team consistently meets its fiduciary duties and ethical responsibilities as outlined in the Code of Ethics.  These include:

Transparency and disclosure

At its core, a fiduciary duty requires you to act with undivided loyalty to your clients. Transparency is the mechanism that makes this loyalty verifiable. By clearly communicating all costs, risks and associations, you eliminate any information asymmetry that may favour the professional over the layperson.

Ultimately, transparency and disclosure can transform your relationship from being simply transactional into a partnership built on informed consent, one that ensures your client’s best interests remain the primary driver of every decision.

There are several ways transparency and disclosure can support your fiduciary duty:

1. Transparency ensures clients have access to all relevant information about their investments, including potential risks, fees and conflicts of interest. By disclosing such information, your clients can make informed decisions and understand the implications of their investment choices. This transparency helps you fulfill your fiduciary duty by avoiding any misleading or incomplete information that could compromise any clients’ best interests.

Transparent disclosure of fees enables clients to understand the costs associated with your advice and their investments. This disclosure allows your clients to assess the value they receive from your services and make informed decisions about their financial goals.

Transparency also ensures you meet standards four and seven of the Code of Ethics; without transparency, a client cannot provide informed consent. Being transparent about your advice, particularly about any benefits you receive – whether they flow to you or your licensee – are more likely to result in costs that are fair and reasonable and represent value for money for the client, as required by the standard.

2. It is an obligation for advice professionals to avoid or appropriately manage conflicts of interest. Transparency about any potential conflicts that could compromise clients’ interests provides clarity to your clients and ensures you take necessary steps to mitigate such conflicts. Full disclosure allows your clients to evaluate the advice they receive, helps you to maintain the clients’ trust and meet your fiduciary obligations.

Being transparent about any potential conflict of interest and how it is being managed can keep you on the right side of standard three.

3. Advisers must be transparent about investment advice provided to clients: the strategies, associated risks and any potential limitations or drawbacks. Clients need to have a clear understanding of how your recommendations align with their financial goals and risk tolerance.

Transparent disclosure helps clients make informed decisions and helps you fulfill your fiduciary duty by providing suitable investment advice. Advice and product recommendations are covered by standards five, six and nine. Approaching advice with full transparency will help you meet those standards.

Ultimately, transparency enables clients to make informed decisions and trust that you have prioritised their best interests.

Client centric decision making

A commitment to client centric decision making provides the foundation for meeting your fiduciary duty. This approach means placing the client’s best interests at the forefront of each action and recommendation.

You have a legal and ethical obligation to act in all clients’ best interests, which requires prioritising factors such as their life goals, financial objectives, risk tolerance and financial security. By embracing a client centric mindset, you can tailor advice to align with each client’s unique circumstances, aspirations and long-term financial success.

A client-centric approach allows you to deliver personalised financial solutions that empower clients to achieve their objectives with confidence. This not only reinforces your fiduciary responsibility but also elevates the value and impact of the financial advice you provide.

Investing the time to understand your clients’ unique needs, preferences and concerns allows you to craft financial strategies that are both highly effective and personally resonant. This client-centric approach does more than just deliver results; it cultivates a foundation of trust and solidifies long-term loyalty, significantly boosting your professional credibility. Ultimately, a robust client-adviser relationship is the cornerstone of building and sustaining a thriving, reputable financial advisory practice.

A client first approach positions you to comply with key ethical and professional standards, including those outlined in the Code of Ethics, notably those in the ‘Client Care’ subsection (standards four-six). By prioritising your clients’ best interests at every stage of the advice process, you fulfill both your fiduciary duty and ethical obligations and, at the same time, enhance the overall quality and effectiveness of your advice.

Duty of care and skill

Fiduciary duty mandates a high standard of care and skill. Financial advisers are expected to possess and maintain the requisite expertise to provide truly competent advice. This requires a commitment to continuous professional development, staying ahead of shifting industry trends, evolving regulations and emerging best practices.

By upholding this standard of excellence, you ensure that every recommendation is underpinned by current data and optimised strategies. Fulfilling this duty not only demonstrates your professional integrity but also ensures direct alignment with the requirements of Standard ten.

Legal protection and accountability

Fiduciary duty also provides clients with legal protection and avenues for recourse in the event an adviser does the wrong thing for a client. Clients can seek redress through AFCA, and both ASIC and AFCA can hold financial professionals accountable for any misconduct or negligence that results in financial harm.

The legal framework that governs financial advice creates a strong incentive for advisers to act with integrity and maintain the trust of their clients. Legal protection and accountability are also enshrined in the Code of Ethics.

Case studies

The following case studies are based on real cases dealt with by ASIC or AFCA; however, the names of people and organisations have been changed and some details altered. For each case study, it will be shown where the adviser has potentially breached or upheld their fiduciary duty and how this did or did not comply with the twelve standards that comprise the Code of Ethics.

Case study one: A failure of fiduciary duty

Readers will be aware that there have been a number of cases relating to investments in the First Guardian Master Fund (First Guardian), many of which are ongoing. This first case study is drawn from ASIC’s actions in relation to First Guardian. Names and details have been altered.

ASIC has issued a 10-year ban against former financial adviser Phillip following findings of serious professional misconduct. The regulator determined that Phillip breached his fundamental obligations by prioritising personal gain over client welfare, specifically regarding recommendations to invest in, and roll superannuation into, the First Guardian Master Fund.

Key findings of misconduct

The investigation revealed several critical failures in Phillip’s practice:

• Conflict of interest – he accepted $100,000 in payments classified as conflicted remuneration
• Deceptive conduct – he issued SOAs falsely claiming he received no benefits that could influence his recommendations
• Failure of care – he failed to investigate the suitability of First Guardian for his clients, exposing them to unacceptable risk levels.
• Lack of competence – ASIC concluded that Phillip was not a “fit and proper person” to provide financial services and posed a high risk of future legal contraventions.

The 10-year prohibition is comprehensive. Phillip is barred from:

• Providing any financial services.
• Controlling any entity within the financial services sector.
• Performing any function related to the operation of a financial services business.

ASIC stated that its enforcement action serves to protect consumers, maintain public confidence in the financial system and act as a deterrent against similar unethical behaviour within the industry.

This case study highlights the interrelationship of fiduciary duty and ethics. As well as failing in his fiduciary duty to his clients, Phillip potentially breached nearly every standard in the Code of Ethics as follows:

Case study two: Inappropriate advice

Lydia sought compensation from her adviser, Charlie, and his firm, ACME Financial Advice, asserting that they had mismanaged her portfolio. Her primary contention was that the advice provided failed to meet her goal of maximising capital growth to facilitate retirement by age 60. She argued that the poor investment performance constituted a failure to act in her best interests.

ACME Financial Advice and Charlie denied any mismanagement, maintaining that the advice was appropriate for the client’s profile. They highlighted two key factors for the portfolio’s decline:

1. To achieve the aggressive returns Lydia desired, she would have had to take on risk levels far exceeding her documented tolerance, which would have been inappropriate and contrary to her best interests.
2. The firm noted that the significant reduction in Lydia’s portfolio balance was primarily driven by several large capital withdrawals she made over a three-year period.

The AFCA investigation of the matter saw the body rule in favour of the financial firm based on several key points:

Evidence versus recollection – while Lydia claimed her primary goal was early retirement, AFCA gave greater weight to contemporaneous documentation maintained by Charlie and ACME Financial Advice (Fact Finds, SOAs and file notes), which did not support her assertion.

Suitability of advice – AFCA concluded that advising Lydia to pursue the high-risk strategies required to attain her desired returns would have been negligent, given her recorded risk profile.

Responsibility for losses – AFCA found there to be no evidence of mismanagement; rather, the depletion of funds was attributed to market performance and Lydia’s own withdrawal history.

AFCA found the advice to be appropriate and determined that ACME Financial Advice was not liable for compensation. In this case, Charlie met his fiduciary duties. Specific standards in the Code of Ethics that he upheld in relation to this case include:

Case study three: A violation of fiduciary duty

The case against Simon involves a severe breach of the fiduciary relationship between a financial adviser and their client. Simon received $476,000 from his client George, specifically earmarked for investment in designated stocks.

Rather than executing George’s instructions, Simon misappropriated the funds to engage in personal trading on his own account. Following significant trading losses, he engaged in deceptive conduct by leading George to believe his investment remained intact, effectively concealing the loss.

Upon an ASIC investigation, it was determined that Simon’s actions demonstrated a fundamental lack of the integrity required for the advice profession. The regulator’s findings focused on three key areas:

Character and judgment – Simon was found to lack the necessary judgment and character to operate within the financial services industry.

Suitability – Simon was officially declared not a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold a position of financial trust.

Legal contravention – Simon’s conduct represented a flagrant misuse of client funds and a total breach of professional trust.

To protect consumers and maintain the integrity of the Australian financial system, ASIC imposed a permanent ban, prohibiting Simon from:

• Providing any form of financial service.
• Controlling any entity that carries on a financial services business.
• Performing any professional function within the industry.

This case is a reminder of the consequences of violating the duty of loyalty. Fiduciary duty is not merely a regulatory checkbox; it is a legal and ethical mandate to keep client assets separate and secure.

Transparency is required even (and especially) when losses occur; ASIC noted that deceptive reporting to hide a breach of trust is viewed as a separate and serious offense.

As a result of his actions, Simon potentially breached the following standards in the Code of Ethics:

Case study four: Fulfilling one’s fiduciary duty

The complainants in this case, Adam and Deanne, were growth investors with an ongoing advice relationship with ACME Financial Planning that spanned 15 years. The couple were informed investors, and both paid the highest marginal tax rate.

In 2020, the couple received advice from their adviser, Monique, that they should decrease their exposure to international equities in favour of Australian equities. The couple subsequently claimed the advice was not in their best interests and contrary to ACME Financial Planning’s own target asset allocation. As a result of the greater weighting to Australian equities, the couple claimed the portfolio underperformed by 14.7% – or $52,630 in dollar terms.

ACME Financial Planning acknowledged the allocation was contrary to its target allocation but said this was in the couple’s best interests because it provided access to tax benefits in the form of franked dividends. It also provided greater stability as it reduced foreign currency risk. The overweighting to Australian equities was clearly disclosed and explained in the Statement of Advice (SOA) that accompanied the advice.

The subsequent AFCA investigation determined that the advice Adam and Deanne received was in their best interests. Although it resulted in them having a greater exposure to Australian equities, AFCA was satisfied the rationale was clearly articulated and documented, and the reasons were not contrary to either party’s best interests.

Consequently, AFCA found in favour of Monique and ACME Financial Planning; neither party needed to compensate the client.

Clients seeking financial advice expect the advice provided will leave them in a better position. Section 961G provides that the resulting advice must be appropriate to the client. In relation to this advice, AFCA found there was a sound basis for deviating from the firm’s target asset allocation.

This case study demonstrated that financial adviser Monique had done the right thing. As such, she most likely complied with the following standards of the Code of Ethics:

Fiduciary duty is more than a regulatory hurdle; it is the moral and professional backbone of a sustainable financial advice practice. By centring the client’s best interests, advisers move beyond the role of a mere service provider to become a trusted partner in their clients’ life journeys. This commitment to loyalty, transparency and professional care does more than protect the public – it builds the very credibility and trust that allow a practice to flourish over the long term. In an industry where reputation is a valuable asset, upholding a rigorous fiduciary standard is not just a legal obligation, but the hallmark of professional excellence.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.75 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.75 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism & Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

The post CPD: The fiduciary mandate and ethics in financial advice appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Ethics form the foundation of advice, underpinning trust, long-term client relationships and a resilient, sustainable business.

Ethics in financial advice isn’t just about ‘doing the right thing’ to sleep better at night, it’s the fundamental bedrock of a sustainable business model. In this article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, the importance of ethical practice is explored.

In the world of financial advice, it’s common to speak in the language of numbers: compound returns, asset allocation, insurance, yield…

However, the true foundation of a thriving advice practice isn’t found in numbers, it’s built upon the bond of ethical integrity. When a client walks into your office, they aren’t just looking for a higher rate of return. Instead, they’re looking for a partner they can trust with their future, their legacy and, importantly, their peace of mind.

Choosing to lead with ethics is a proactive commitment to excellence. It transforms the adviser-client relationship from a transactional relationship to a partnership. By placing professional standards and the client’s best interests at the centre of every decision, an advice practice does more than just meet requirements, it creates a sense of security, important in this increasingly volatile world.

In this light, a code of Ethics is not a restrictive set of rules. It is a tool that fuels long-term business growth because it fosters deep-seated client loyalty and elevates the professionalism of financial advice.

Professional standards reforms for financial advisers were introduced to the Corporations Act 2001 in March 2017. These reforms were designed to raise the education, training and ethical standards of those providing personal advice to retail clients on ‘more complex financial products’^[1]. Those reforms required FASEA (as was) to develop the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics (Code of Ethics), which came into effect in January 2020.

The introduction of the Code of Ethics came with an expectation from ASIC that Australian Financial Services licensees would take reasonable steps to ensure that their authorised representatives comply with the Code. For example, licensees must:

• Ensure their authorised representatives are aware of the need for compliance with the Code of Ethics and that this compliance is ongoing.
• Provide training and/or guidance to their authorised representatives about the types of conduct that is consistent/inconsistent with the Code of Ethics..
• Facilitate individual advisers’ ability to raise concerns with the AFS licensee about how the licensee’s systems and controls may be hindering their ability to comply with the Code of Ethics, and act on those concerns where appropriate.
• Consider whether advisers are complying with the Code of Ethics as part of their regular, ongoing monitoring of adviser conduct.
• Make any necessary changes to systems and processes to ensure compliance with the Code of Ethics and other regulatory requirements.

The Code of Ethics addresses five core values: trustworthiness, competence, honesty, fairness and diligence. It requires that financial advisers must act at all times and in all cases, in a manner that is demonstrably consistent with Code’s twelve ethical standards, summarised in figure one. These standards are regulated and monitored by ASIC’s approved compliance schemes.

Ethics is a ‘team sport’

An ethics-centred approach is not a solo performance by the adviser; it is a team sport played by the entire practice. From the first greeting at the front desk to the final signature on a Statement of Advice, every touchpoint is an opportunity to reinforce a culture of integrity, professionalism and care.

The ethical chain of command

To truly embed the values that underpin the Code of Ethics, every role within an advice practice must understand that ethics isn’t just the adviser’s responsibility, they need to know how the Code of Ethics translates into their roles. For example:

• The receptionist – as the face of the firm, they champion ethics through data privacy and by creating a welcoming, transparent environment for every client who walks through the door.
• The paraplanner and administrator – these ‘engineers’ of the financial plan need to ensure that every strategy is executed with technical precision and that paperwork is handled with the highest degree of integrity.
• The practice manager – by prioritising ethical training and fostering an open-door policy, they ensure that the practice’s moral compass remains calibrated as the business grows and new staff join the team.

While every staff member must perform their duties in a way that aligns with the firm’s values, the professional weight remains clearly defined. Each team member’s commitment provides the essential support that allows advisers and licensees to fulfill their regulatory obligations.

Ultimately, although the entire team builds the culture, the adviser and licensee stand as the final guardians of the practice and bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that every action taken meets the highest standard of care.

To establish an ethics-centric practice and minimise the risk of violating the Code of Ethics, there are a range of strategies that could be implemented. These include:

1. Code of conduct: by establishing a practice-wide code of conduct, one which encapsulates your firm’s values as well as the Code of Ethics, your team should have a clear understanding of their role and the expectations that go with it.

Any code of conduct should set clear expectations about employee behaviour when performing their role and, in an ethics-centric practice, how each of the twelve standards may specifically intersect their role. This should be a concise and accessible document that is distributed to all staff members, and which is readily available for reference.

2. Communication: establish clear communication channels within your practice to convey the importance of ethics. Regularly discuss ethical considerations during team meetings, emphasising the relevance of the Code to each staff member’s role. A collaborative environment where colleagues can monitor and support each other in upholding ethical standards is important to create and maintain an ethical practice. Encourage open discussions about ethical dilemmas and provide guidance on navigating challenging situations.

It’s also important to communicate clearly, openly and honestly with your clients. In the initial meetings, don’t simply tell them what you will do for them, but detail how you will work with them to achieve their objectives. Establish ongoing channels of communication and explain how you will communicate with them. It’s important to detail the method and frequency.

Remember that it’s important not to make promises that cannot be honoured. As well as potentially breaching the Code, it will reflect badly on the practice.

3. Set key performance indicators (KPIs): by reinforcing your company’s values, adhering to your practice’s code of conduct and behaving in a way that makes ethical behaviour central to each team member’s work will support the creation of an ethical practice. Although a value driven KPI may sometimes be more challenging to quantify than one with specific and measurable outcomes, it will highlight the importance of values and ethics to your practice.

The implementation of accountability measures will ensure that all staff members integrate ethical considerations into their daily responsibilities. Further, to recognise and reward ethical behaviour will reinforce a positive ethical culture.

4. Checklist: a checklist can be used to safeguard compliance with the Code. The questions in the checklist should be tailored to each role in the practice and include those relevant to dealing with prospective clients, new clients and existing clients.

5. Workplace training: this is essential to ensure all staff understand both the practice’s values and the obligations of the Code. Using workshops to promote ethics in your workplace will reinforce the practice’s standards of conduct and clarify behaviours and practices that do and don’t work within your own code of conduct – and within the Code.

Importantly, ethics training should not be a once off. Ethics training could be incorporated as part of a regular team meeting; for example, by using a variety of case studies that address common ethical dilemmas across the financial planning industry. It can be used to emphasise your firm’s commitment to continuous improvement in ethical practices. It also provides an opportunity to seek feedback from staff as to how the practice can better support ethical decision-making and incorporate this input into ongoing improvements.

Ideally, this workplace training should be practical as far as possible and teach team members to make good decisions that are compliant with the law and consistent with your practice’s values.

Ethics training should also be incorporated into the onboarding process for new employees.; this will ensure they receive the necessary information and guidance to understand and comply with the Code from the beginning of their tenure.

6. Feedback loop: by encouraging staff to provide honest feedback about the processes, conversations and client interactions, you are better placed to make sure you’re aware of issues that may arise that could potentially compromise your business. A feedback loop can help you identify gaps in relation to processes and procedures, and where a checklist or workplace training may be useful tools.

7. Lead by example: regardless of your position in a practice, it’s important to set a good example. For those who are senior in the practice, it’s more important to demonstrate those behaviours that are and are not acceptable. Senior advisers and personnel will set the tone for ethics in the practice; as such, they need to embody the Code in all they say and do.

8. Regular audit: These or similar strategies may have already been implemented in your practice. If so, it’s important to review the effectiveness of each. What’s working well and what’s not? If you can identify gaps in processes that may lead to a breach of the Code, it’s better to identify them ahead of time than when ASIC comes knocking on your door.

Why is an ethics-centric practice important?

An ethics-centric practice is important because it transforms the nature of financial advice from a mere commodity into a high-trust partnership. In an industry where clients often share their most intimate life goals and vulnerabilities, a firm commitment to ethical standards provides a moral compass that guides every decision, especially when regulations don’t provide a clear-cut answer.

A culture of integrity does more than just protect the firm from reputational risk; it creates a superior client experience characterised by transparency and peace of mind. Ultimately, when a practice prioritises doing the right thing, it builds a sustainable legacy where the interests of the adviser, the staff and the client are perfectly aligned. This ensures long-term success that can be measured by more than just assets under management.

Furthermore, aside from the legal obligations the Code place on licensees and advisers, ethics play a crucial role in running a successful financial advice practice. The reasons for this in more detail:

1. Client trust: ethical behaviour builds trust and clients are more likely to trust a financial adviser who demonstrates a commitment to ethical conduct. Trust is fundamental in establishing and maintaining long-term client relationships.

Each of the Code’s standards is trust building. A failure in any one area can erode trust and derail the adviser/client relationship.

2. Integrity and professionalism: an adherence to ethical practices upholds the integrity of the financial advice profession. It demonstrates both professionalism and a dedication to acting in the best interests of clients. This, in turn, enhances the credibility and reputation of the individual financial adviser, his or her practice and the industry as a whole.

While integrity underpins several of the Code of Ethic’s standards, it is a specific requirement of standard two, which requires advisers to always act with integrity.

3. Client’s best interests: financial advisers have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of their clients. Ethical behaviour ensures that financial advisers prioritise their clients’ needs and goals over their own, thereby avoiding conflicts of interest that could compromise the quality of advice provided.

Acting in each client’s best interests is aligned with several standards within the Code of Ethics, notably standards two and five that specifically reference client best interests. Other standards also align with the need to act in a client’s best interests, including standard three (avoiding conflicts of interest), standard four (acting with informed consent) and standard six (consider the long-term effects of advice).

4. Legal and compliance: ethical behaviour aligns with the legal requirements and regulations governing the Australian financial advice industry. Financial advisers who act ethically are more likely to comply with legal standards and have a reduced risk of encountering legal issues or regulatory scrutiny. Unethical behaviour can result in legal consequences, damaging both your career and the practice’s reputation.

Standard one of the Code of Ethics requires that advisers act in accordance with all applicable laws (including the Code).

5. Risk management: ethical decision-making contributes to effective risk management. By considering all advice through an ethical lens, advisers can identify and mitigate potential risks, protecting both clients and the reputation of the advice practice.

This also comes back to standard two, the requirement to act with integrity, for this is a quality that enables advisers to identify and manage risks.

6. Long-term success: ethical behaviour will contribute to the long-term success of your practice. Clients who feel well-served and that you have always acted in their best interests are more likely to remain loyal to you and provide referrals, contributing to the ongoing growth and success of your business.

7. Industry reputation: ethical conduct by financial advisers collectively enhances the reputation of the entire financial services industry. Unethical practices can lead to negative perceptions and erode public trust, affecting not only individual advisers but the industry as a whole.

The reputational damage possible to the industry is the subject of standard twelve and its requirement that individually and in cooperation with peers, advisers must uphold and promote the ethical standards of the profession.

8. Personal satisfaction: Knowing you are making a positive impact on your clients’ lives, acting in clients’ best interests and adhering to a strong ethical framework is likely to enhance the sense of purpose and professional satisfaction in your work. Replicate this across your practice and it’s a recipe for success.

Case studies

The following case studies are based on ASIC’s enforcement activities, FSCP cases or AFCA complaints; however, names and other details have been changed for privacy reasons.

Case study one: Failing to sufficiently account for client circumstances

Financial adviser Margot, an authorised representative of ACME Advice, was referred to the FSCP sitting panel after ASIC became aware of allegations of misconduct. The sitting panel determined that Margot contravened sections 961B(1), 961G and 921E(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to advice provided to two of her retail clients between February 2023 and April 2024.

In relation to the first client, the sitting panel found that Margot had failed to make “reasonable inquiries to obtain complete and accurate information about whether the client held insurance through their existing superannuation before recommending that the client transfer their superannuation from one fund to another fund”.

The second case regarded Margot’s failure to base all judgements in advising the clients on their relevant circumstances. The sitting panel determined that there were “numerous errors and inconsistencies recorded in the SOA” regarding:

• where the client’s existing superannuation was held
• the client’s self-employed status
• whether the client held insurance or not.

Further, the panel commented that in providing the advice, Margot had “failed to demonstrate the Code of Ethics’ values of competence and diligence and breached Standards 5 and 9 of the Code of Ethics.”

In this instance, Margot received a written reprimand from the FSCP.

The FSCP sitting panel determined that Margot breached two standards. There are other potential standards the panel could have considered to have also been breached as follows:

Case study two: Dishonest practices

Financial adviser Sam was a sole practitioner whose financial advice practice, ACME SMSFs, focused on dealing in listed securities and advising on self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs). He was investigated by ASIC after clients Pam and Nigel grew concerned about funds being withdrawn from their SMSF, transactions they had not authorised.

Although Sam did not initially cooperate with ASIC’s investigation, the regulator eventually exposed his dealings and found Sam had:

• made 144 unauthorised transfers, impacting 11 clients, totalling nearly $2.75 million
• used these stolen funds for personal reasons, including gambling and paying off personal debt
• made false representations to clients and other third parties about the unauthorised transfers with the intent to conceal his dishonest conduct.

Sam was convicted of 15 offences of dishonesty and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. He was also permanently banned from providing financial services or from controlling an entity carrying on a financial services business.

ASIC found Sam took advantage of the trust placed in him by his clients. The regulator determined it was appropriate to permanently ban Sam because of the seriousness of his misconduct, the impact on his clients and the need to prevent future harm to consumers.

Sam potentially breached the following standards of the Code of Ethics.

Case study three: Bad advice

The complainants in this case, Christine and Cameron, are corporate trustees of a self-managed superannuation fund. They were clients of financial firm ACME Financial Advice from 22 October 2019 to 4 July 2025.

The complainants believe that the financial firm’s advice was not appropriate for their SMSF during this period. They cited several reasons in their complaint:

• the recommended asset allocation was too aggressive for its conservative members
• it was unnecessary to take on the degree of risk that was recommended to achieve their objectives
• the financial firm was conflicted when it made the recommendations.

The financial firm denied the allegations. Its stated case is that the recommendations were appropriate for the complainants and that it managed any potential conflicts of interest in accordance with its obligations.

AFCA’s investigation found that ACME Financial Advice did not provide appropriate advice to Christine and Cameron, nor did it act in their best interests. The findings noted that ACME Financial Advice:

• failed to provide advice within the risk parameters it set
• failed to diversify the portfolio’s growth assets, with the portfolio too heavily weighted towards property
• recommended an overly high proportion of related entity investments without justification.

AFCA found that the SMSF would have been $252,565 better off had Christine and Cameron not followed the advice provided. Consequently, AFCA’s determination was in favour of the complainants and ACME Financial Advice had to pay the complainants $252,565 compensation plus interest.

By not disclosing required information and misleading the client by omission, ACME Financial Advice potentially breached the following standards in the Code of Ethics:

Case study four: Unethical practice

Gold Coast based financial adviser Dinesh – also a certified practising accountant, registered tax practitioner and self-managed superannuation fund auditor – was a director of ACME Financial Services & related company ACME SMSFs.

Following an ASIC investigation, it is alleged that between March 2018 and August 2024, Dinesh provided unlicensed financial services related to securities, executed unauthorised share trades on client accounts, falsified a fixed-term deposit certificate and misappropriated funds from both personal and SMSF bank accounts belonging to his clients for his benefit or the benefit of third-parties.

As a result of his conduct, it was alleged that Dinesh misappropriated funds totalling nearly $5 million and caused trading losses of approximately $1.25 million.

At the relevant time, Dinesh was authorised by ACME Financial Services Pty Ltd to provide financial product advice regarding retirement savings account products and superannuation. He was charged with two counts of dealing in securities without a licence to do so. The maximum penalty is between two and five years’ imprisonment. He was also charged with breaching each of:

• s1041G Corporations Act 2001, which requires that a person must not, in the course of carrying on a financial services business in this jurisdiction, engage in dishonest conduct in relation to a financial product or financial service.
• s1311 of the Corporations Act 2001 which establishes the general penalty provisions for offences under the Act, creating criminal liability for contravening, or failing to comply with, the Act’s requirements.

Each of these breaches carry a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.

Dinesh was also charged with seven counts of dishonestly applying property of another to himself or another, in circumstances where the value of the property has a value of at least $100,000 (aggravated fraud). The maximum penalty for each offence is 20 years’ imprisonment.

In the constantly evolving financial advice landscape, products can be replicated and strategies can be automated, but a culture of trust and integrity remains irreplaceable. Managing an ethics-centred practice is more than a strategy for avoiding risk: it’s an investment in the most valuable asset any firm can manage…your clients and the trust relationship.

An ethics centric practice will benefit from three key synergies:

1. Client retention – because trust creates the strongest bond in any professional relationship, ethical practices hold on to their clients (and grow through referral) whatever is happening in markets.
2. Operational clarity – a shared ethical code simplifies decision-making for staff, as the ‘right’ path and important decision making is defined by values rather than rules.
3. Professional pride – employees are more engaged and productive when they believe in the social value and honesty of their work.

When every member of your team operates with a shared moral compass, a virtuous cycle is created, one where clients feel secure, staff feel empowered and the business achieves a level of resilience that market volatility cannot shake. In this industry, doing the ethical thing is quite literally the best way to do well.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.5 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.5 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism and Ethics (0.5 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.5 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———

Notes:
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2019L00117

The post CPD: The importance of ethics to your advice practice appeared first on AdviserVoice.

How do advisers work with vulnerable clients, particularly those affected by ageing and cognitive decline?

This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, examines how advisers work with vulnerable clients, particularly those affected by ageing and cognitive decline. Part two focuses specifically on the rising incidence of elder abuse and the practical application of the Code of Ethics.

As highlighted in part one of this CPD series, vulnerability is a growing issue for Australians. Our nation’s demographic trajectory makes an increase in vulnerable clients unavoidable and, statistically, an increase in clients at risk of financial abuse inevitable.

Financial abuse is unfortunately common and accounted for 30 percent of allegations reported to the NSW Ageing and Disability Commission between 1 July 2019 and 31 March 2025^[1]. The seriousness of this issue has resulted in the Financial Elder Abuse Project, an initiative of the Australian Human Rights Commission, which aims to strengthen the financial safety of older Australians. Running from 2024-2026, the project brings together representatives from the banking, financial, legal and community sectors to improve the prevention of, and response to, financial elder abuse^[2].

Defined as ‘the misuse or theft of an older person’s money or assets’, financial elder abuse can cover a broad spectrum of behaviours, sometimes described as existing in the grey area between thoughtless practice and outright theft. It’s important to note that while all vulnerable clients may be at risk of financial abuse, it is most prevalent among the elderly.

The Financial Elder Abuse Project is being championed by Age Discrimination Commissioner Robert Fitzgerald AM who believes the risk factors contributing to financial elder abuse are likely to increase in the next 20-30 years, including the issue of inheritance impatience.

The risk factors noted by the Age Discrimination Commissioner include:

• the growing ageing population, with people living longer and healthier lives
• the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history
• growing economic pressures, such as the rising cost of living, lack of affordable housing and low wage growth.

As an adviser, you are in the box seat to serve as frontline defenders to bridge the gap between financial management and safeguarding the personal autonomy of your clients. As will be explored in greater detail in this article, your role includes the proactive identification of risks by monitoring for red flags as identified by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

Beyond technical oversight, you are uniquely positioned to engage in meaningful conversations with older clients and their families and facilitate transparent family meetings that clarify the client’s wishes. By acting as an objective third party, you have an opportunity to normalise the discussion of protective measures such as Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPOA) protocols to ensure that family involvement remains supportive rather than exploitative.

To ensure ongoing compliance with the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 (Code of Ethics) and its twelve standards (figure one), it is important that advice practices have strategies to define, identify and manage potential cases of elder financial abuse.

Financial elder abuse: definition, prevalence and forms of abuse

Definition

Elder abuse, as a broad concept, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as:

“A single or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person.”

Elder abuse typically takes several forms, and some individuals may be subject to one or more of these:

• Psychological abuse
• Physical abuse
• Financial abuse
• Social abuse
• Sexual abuse
• Neglect

Elder abuse can have serious physical and mental health, financial and social consequences. These can include physical injuries, premature mortality, depression, cognitive decline, financial devastation and placement in aged care facilities.

The Financial Services Council (FSC) defines elder financial abuse as:

‘Any activity by an individual that seeks to use fraudulent, illegal, deceptive or otherwise improper acts or processes to advantage from the financial resources of an older or elderly individual.’

In this definition, advantage can include:

• personal profit or gain
• enabling profit or gain for a relative, friend, spouse or business associate
• deprivation of the right of an older or elderly individual to benefits, resources, belongings or assets for any reason.

Prevalence

While several reports are currently in train, the most recently published show financial abuse to be the second most common form of elder abuse; disturbingly, 69.5 percent of victims experienced more than one type of abuse.

however, as highlighted by the Age Discrimination Commissioner earlier in this article, circumstances suggest that instances of financial elder abuse are expected to increase.

AFCA notes^[3] the following risk factors may increase the likelihood of elder abuse:

• limited digital literacy
• language barriers
• geographical or social isolation
• cognitive impairment
• reduced mobility, vision, or hearing
• physical dependence on another person for care or help with tasks.

Forms of financial abuse

Elder financial abuse can take many forms. Your experience as a financial adviser is likely to vary from experiences across other financial services such as banks or insurers.

The NSW Ageing and Disability Commission (ADC) recently released a granular breakdown of financial abuse allegations, revealing that exploitation and the misuse of legal authority are the most dominant types of abuse.

Recent research has identified three specific ‘modern’ methods of financial abuse:

1. Coerced ‘Granny Flat’ arrangements^[4] – whereby a family pressures an older relative to sell their home and fund the construction of a granny flat on the child’s property, often without a legal contract. If the relationship breaks down, the older person is left homeless and without their original capital.
2. Technology-facilitated abuse – the perpetrator exploits the older person’s digital illiteracy and gains access to banking apps, passwords and MyGov accounts. A 2025 study found that men are statistically more likely to experience this form of tech-based financial control than women^[5].
3. Tax and business exploitation – this involves unwitting tax fraud, where family members list an older person as a director of a shell company or use their Tax File Number to claim fraudulent refunds or shift business debts^[6].

Ethics and financial elder abuse

Elder abuse can be an ethical minefield. You may have older clients at risk of financial abuse and you need to be alert to red flags. It’s hard to meet the basic ethical requirement – to always act in the client’s best interests – if you don’t act to protect your clients from potential (or actual) financial abuse.

Ethical considerations include:

• Avoid conflicts of interest, particularly in situations where two generations of a family are clients
• Avoid contributing to the perpetration of unlawful acts
• Ensure all clients are well informed; as clients age, ensure they understand what constitutes elder abuse
• Ensure your client understands the advice, and has capacity to act
• Be respectful – after all, just because a client is old does not mean they’re not able to make valid financial decisions
• Your client’s best interests come first.

In its updated approach to financial abuse of older people, AFCA expects that where a financial firm sees warning signs that an older person might be experiencing financial abuse, it will take steps to ensure the person is making an independent and informed decision. It further notes the importance of distinguishing signs of potential financial abuse of an older person from a decision freely made by an older person who has capacity to do so.

Warning signs of elder abuse

AFCA has observed the following warning signs in complaints involving financial abuse of older people, but notes that it is a non-exhaustive list.

An older person may:

• Engage in financial activity that is unusual or inconsistent with their long-standing patterns of financial activity
• Be accompanied by someone who appears to pressure them into making financial decisions
• Have a third party speak on their behalf, including in situations involving language barriers
• Ask for communications to be sent to a third party, especially when that person is not formally authorised
• Appear fearful (particularly of the person accompanying them) or withdrawn
• Not understand or be aware of recent financial decisions (e.g. they are confused about why they are being asked to consent or sign a document)
• Sign a guarantee of a company’s loan when they were not encouraged to obtain independent financial or legal advice about the guarantee
• Be unable to explain, or appear confused about, their financial products or decisions
• Register for online services despite having no prior history of online interactions
• Express concerns about missing funds or financial documents.

Where these or other signs arise, AFCA states that financial firms should make further inquiries and proceed with caution. This may include delaying the processing of a customer’s request or taking other preventative steps.

In a situation where a financial firm has reasonable cause to suspect financial abuse, they should not require evidence before escalating the matter or considering what safeguards may need to be put in place.

When considering the appropriateness of a financial firm’s response, AFCA will consider whether it took timely preventative, supportive and restorative action without first placing a burden on the customer to provide further information. Any additional safeguards introduced should be proportionate and sensitive to the older person’s circumstances – for example, it would not be appropriate to ask someone with limited digital literacy to use online portals.

AFCA general principles for dealing with financial abuse

AFCA’s approach aims to align with community expectations and good industry practice, including meeting industry codes of practice, such as the Code of Ethics, in relation to elder financial abuse. This approach includes the following general principles:

1. Consider the context – understand older people experiencing financial abuse are likely to be experiencing considerable stress and may need additional care. Financial firms should take a flexible approach and tailor support options to each customer’s unique circumstances and needs.In complaints, AFCA considers whether financial firms should have been aware of the potential warning signs of financial abuse.

2. Engage with care – engage with the older person with sensitivity, dignity, respect and compassion. This may include referring them to services with specialist training and experience.In complaints, AFCA considers whether the financial firm exercised its role with reasonable care and skill, identifying and responding to warning signs of abuse that emerge from engagement with its customer.

3. Prioritise safety and agency – the safety and wellbeing of the older person must be a priority in the firm’s communication, documentation and financial and account arrangements. This includes accepting an older person’s disclosure of financial abuse at face value and working with the older person to provide information in an accessible and flexible way.In complaints, we consider whether the financial firm should have taken precautions or other preventative action when warning signs of abuse were present.

Assessing client vulnerability

Today’s landscape of shifting family dynamics and complex wealth transfers highlights the importance of establishing a thoughtful process to identify and support vulnerable clients. This isn’t simply about meeting regulatory requirements; it is about honouring the trust your client has placed in you to safeguard their hard-earned legacy and independence.

One way to do this is to develop a simple checklist to be used when meeting with older and/or vulnerable clients. As well as being the right thing to do for potentially vulnerable clients, it can help you meet your ethical requirements. Such a checklist could include sections on:

• Identifying vulnerabilities – type of vulnerability, signs of reduced understanding or inconsistent instructions or the recent life events that may have occurred.
• Clients’ comprehension and ability to provide informed consent – for example, the client being able to demonstrate understanding, and adequate time was allowed for reflection and follow-up questions.
• Your communication approach – did you adapt language and pace to the client’s capacity, your use of plain English, repetition or visual aids where needed.
• Presence of family members, carers or other third parties – were the client’s views clearly distinguished from the input of others, did you assess the risk of undue influence and in the case of EPOA involvement, was it aligned with client’s welfare and wishes?
• Appropriateness of advice – measured in relation to the client’s capacity as well as goals, would you be comfortable defending that advice under ethical scrutiny?
• Ethical red flags – did you experience discomfort or unease about proceeding and if so, did you consider the risk of financial elder abuse and evaluate any potential harm to your client’s dignity, independence or security?
• Documentation and escalation – where appropriate, did you document ethical reasoning or discuss concerns with peers or licensee? Should you pause, decline or escalate advice and related issues?

By weaving empathy-led vulnerability checks into your advice process will better help you identify   subtle changes in a client’s wellbeing before a crisis unfolds. A proactive, compassionate approach can build on your trust relationship and ensure vulnerable clients have a professional ally.

It’s important to ensure that, practice wide, advice reflects the spirit and intent of the Code of Ethics. That is, client wellbeing is always prioritised over technical or commercial outcomes and any action taken would withstand public and professional scrutiny.

Case studies

The following case studies are loosely based on those published by ASIC and AFCA. Names of people and places have been changed.

Case study one: Due diligence

Martin sought compensation for a series of withdrawals totalling $737,000 that he had made from his account-based pension. He had made the withdrawal requests himself. Martin told his adviser, Mark from ACME Advice, that the funds were being used for personal matters, to support family members and to cover his living expenses.

After the funds had been withdrawn, Martin’s daughter advised Mark and ACME Advice that her father had been the victim of a sophisticated scam. She argued that Mark (and ACME Advice) should have recognised the signs of financial abuse and intervened. She made a formal complaint to AFCA.

AFCA found that Mark went above and beyond his duties in attempting to assist Martin. His contact notes and contemporaneous records demonstrated that the adviser had:

• made repeated enquiries about the purpose of the withdrawals
• expressed concern for Martin’s wellbeing
• encouraged him to seek legal advice
• offered to provide personal financial advice.

Martin declined each of these offers. Consequently, AFCA found that Mark and ACME Advice had met their obligations under the law, including the Code of Ethics. The transactions were authorised, conducted on an ‘execution only’ basis, and deposited into the complainant’s own account. AFCA determined that Mark and ACME Advice were not responsible for Martin’s loss.

Mark’s actions saw him make best endeavours to determine whether there was an issue and comply with his ethical obligations. Importantly, he upheld the following standards.

Case study two: Coercion into a granny flat

Audrey had been widowed for 15 years. She and her husband had invested well over time and her financial adviser, Lisa from ACME Financial Advice, had looked after her financial interests for more than a decade.

At their semi-annual review meeting a year prior, Audrey told Lisa she planned to sell her home and contribute the proceeds toward her daughter’s intended purchase of a new home. She was to have her own granny flat on the property and would live there permanently. That way she would be closer to her daughter and if she needed assistance or care, it would be readily available.

Lisa was surprised. Audrey’s daughter lived in the country; at least two hours from Audrey’s current home and in an area not well serviced by transport. Lisa knew Audrey had remained active in her community. She loved her regular bridge session, was on a bowls team and volunteered at a local charity shop.

Despite Lisa expressing her misgivings, Audrey proceeded with her plans. As well as contributing the proceeds of her property sale to her daughter’s new home, Lisa later redeemed some investments to pay for the fit out of her granny flat.

Less than one year after Audrey moved to her new residence, Lisa received a tearful call. Audrey and her daughter had fallen out; she had missed her community and had not found her place or her people in the new location. She wanted to return to her community but, when she requested the money to do so, was told she had no right. Despite the money from the sale of her property and investments, she was not listed on the title deed, nor was her financial contribution recorded elsewhere.

Although she had some investments, it was not enough for her to set up home, leaving Audrey in a vulnerable position. It’s not an uncommon scenario – as identified by the Australian Human Rights Commission in its current Financial Elder Abuse Project, granny flat arrangements are an increasingly common form of financial abuse.

Although Lisa recognised the situation as unusual and unexpected, she failed her elderly client. She did not recognise coercion, and she failed to recommend that Audrey seek legal advice before selling her home and investments. Legal advice would likely have led to contractual arrangements that provided Audrey with some protections. Ultimately, Lisa’s inaction resulted in her client being in a financially vulnerable position. Lisa potentially breached the following standards in the Code of Ethics:

Case study three: Misuse of an EPOA

Will is in his early 80s and had been a client of ACME Advisors for over a decade. A few years ago, Will’s two sons established a joint EPOA should their father require assistance and stewardship in his later years. Will’s financial adviser Brigid knows of the EPOA and has met with both sons on several occasions.

Despite a recent stroke, Will’s mental acuity had remained strong. However, he’s no longer able to drive and found it challenging to live at home on his own. As a result, Will moved in with his son Gary and daughter in law Cynthia. Although he’s able to be reasonably independent in their home, Cynthia sees herself as Will’s default carer.

Gary contacted Brigid and asked her to redeem a managed fund investment valued at $88,000. He explained that it would be used to make some modifications to his and Cynthia’s home to make it safer and more comfortable for Will to live there. He talked about a ramp in the event Will needed to use a wheelchair, railings in the ensuite bathroom used by Will and some garden landscaping to make it easier for Will to safely enjoy their outdoor space.

Brigid called Will at a time she knew Gary would be at work. She wanted to ensure that Will was aware of this request, its purpose and quantum. Will was aware of the building works and had seen the quotes. He was aware that the modifications had been quoted at $46,000. Gary had intended to keep the remaining $42,000 as ‘payment’ for Will living in his house and his wife’s services as a ‘carer’. He had not intended to inform his father about this, let alone seek his approval. Brigid did not action the transaction and made a file note of this issue in case the situation arose again at a time she wasn’t present at the firm.

Although AFCA acknowledges that employees of financial firms are “not expected to be detectives”, it does state that it is an adviser’s duty to exercise reasonable care and skill. This includes an obligation to question a client’s authorisation of a transaction, especially in circumstances where financial abuse is possible, or the use of funds is not consistent with the customer’s wishes or is not for their benefit.

Through her actions, Brigid acted in Will’s best interests and did not breach the Code of Ethics. However, had she simply actioned Gary’s request, she would have potentially breached the following standards:

Read Part 1:
CPD: Ethical financial advice for vulnerable clients – part one

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.5 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.5 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism and Ethics (0.5 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.5 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———

Notes:
[1] NSW Government Ministerial Release, World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, 15 June 2025
[2] https://humanrights.gov.au/resource-hub/by-resource-type/reports/older-peoples-rights/financial-elder-abuse-project
[3] The AFCA approach to financial abuse of older people, November 2025
[4] Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Financial Elder Abuse Project (Launched Nov 2024; Progress Report October 2025)
[5] AIHW (2025), “Technology-facilitated abuse” subsection, citing Powell et al. and the ANROWS Technology-Facilitated Abuse National Survey
[6] Professor Ann Kayis-Kumar and Professor Jan Breckenridge (UNSW), Exploitation of Financial Systems in Domestic and Elder Abuse, 2026

The post CPD: Ethical financial advice for vulnerable clients – part two appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Advisers need a strong understanding of the ethical and professional complexities of providing advice to vulnerable clients.

This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, examines how advisers work with vulnerable clients, particularly those affected by ageing and cognitive decline. It explores the ethical tensions that may arise and the practical application of the Code of Ethics when autonomy, consent and power are challenged.

Vulnerability is a growing issue for Australians, and our demographic trajectory makes an increase in vulnerable clients unavoidable. More clients are living longer and are having to manage retirement savings over multiple decades. At the same time, these same clients need to navigate superannuation, aged care and estate planning decisions, all at a time when their cognitive ability may be changing.

Conditions such as mild cognitive impairment and dementia rarely arrive suddenly. They typically progress unevenly and are often unnoticed at first. This can create time periods where your clients remain legally competent but are increasingly vulnerable to confusion, influence or harm.

As an adviser, you are trusted to recommend strategies, interpret complexity and guide decisions that may affect a client’s security and independence for the rest of their life. Advice that meets legislative requirements may still fail the client if it overlooks their reduced capacity to understand, question or provide informed consent.

To ensure ongoing compliance with the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 (Code of Ethics) and its twelve standards (figure one), it is important that advice practices have strategies to define, identify and manage vulnerable clients. This could include guidance on how to identify early warning signs of diminished capacity, how to assess genuine understanding, or how to respond ethically when legal authority (such as the use of EPOAs) and moral concerns diverge.

What is vulnerability?

Defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “the fact of being weak and easily hurt physically or emotionally”, vulnerability is often misunderstood as a static label or a synonym for old age or disablement.  However, in the financial advice context, vulnerability is a dynamic state that can affect any client at any time. You also need to be aware of vulnerability that affects a client’s spouse, a dependent or parent, which in turn may impact the advice you provide.

ASIC views vulnerability through the lens of consumer detriment^[1]. While age is a common factor, ASIC emphasises that vulnerability arises when a consumer’s circumstances make them more susceptible to harm or less able to advocate for their own interests. This may include people who have health issues or disabilities, experience language barriers or who are victims of scams.

As the vulnerable clients most likely to be advisory clients are older people, this article focuses primarily on the issues and ethics surrounding age-related vulnerability. However, many of the key points are as relevant for clients with vulnerabilities not related to their age.

Three dimensions of vulnerability

To apply a practical definition in an advice practice, advice practices could categorise vulnerability into three distinct types:

1. Situational vulnerability, which is often triggered by life events. Bereavement, relationship breakdown or a sudden medical diagnosis can temporarily impair a client’s cognitive load and decision-making ability.
2. Progressive vulnerability, which involves a gradual decline. This may be a worsening chronic illness or declining cognitive health such as the early stages of dementia. It may require advisers to adapt their communication styles over time.
3. Structural vulnerability, which refers to a client’s environment, and might include a heavy dependency on family members or carers. While support is positive, it creates a risk of elder abuse or coercive influence, where the client’s own wishes may be overshadowed by others.

Temporary versus permanent diminished capacity

It is also important to distinguish between temporary and permanent diminished capacity. A client grieving the loss of a spouse may experience brain fog that makes complex financial decisions impossible soon after their loss, but they are more likely to regain full capacity in the shorter term. Conversely, permanent conditions often require the formal integration of Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPOA) to ensure the client’s long-term interests are protected.

As advisers know all too well, the Australian financial landscape is complex, particularly when it comes to the later stages of life. The intricacies of superannuation, transition to retirement strategies, estate planning and aged care can be difficult for clients to understand at the best of times. When a client is in a vulnerable state, these complexities are magnified.

One of the difficulties for advisers is the need to navigate a cultural reluctance to discuss decline. Many clients view the loss of financial autonomy as a loss of dignity. This makes your role dual-purpose: you must be both a technical expert and a behavioural specialist, identifying red flags even when the client is hesitant to disclose them.

Alignment of vulnerability with the Code of Ethics

Defining and identifying vulnerability is the bedrock of compliance with the Code of Ethics:

Cognitive decline

The statistics around cognitive decline in Australia are alarming. There were an estimated 433,300 Australians living with dementia in 2025, a figure that’s projected to nearly double to 812,500 by 2054^[2]. You are likely to have clients who are either experiencing cognitive decline themselves or are caring for others who suffer from it. If not today, certainly in the near future.

Australia’s ageing profile suggests that cognitive impairment will become a primary driver of capital erosion. The total cost of dementia is expected to soar to over $26 billion by the 2040s, much of which will be borne by individuals through self-funded aged care and medical out-of-pocket expenses^[3].

What makes it especially challenging is that cognitive decline rarely presents as a clear dividing line between capacity and incapacity. For many clients, it unfolds gradually and unevenly, creating a prolonged ethical grey zone. It’s a time that’s not simply a health issue, but one that can be a structural risk to wealth management and long-term estate planning. Clients remain legally competent but increasingly vulnerable in their decision-making. It is within this space that financial advisers may face some of their most difficult ethical judgements.

A critical distinction must be drawn between legal capacity and functional decision-making ability. Legal capacity is a binary concept and is typically assessed only when formally challenged. Functional capacity, by contrast, exists on a spectrum and relates to a client’s practical ability to understand information, weigh consequences and make consistent decisions. Advisers are not qualified to diagnose impairment, nor are you expected to make clinical assessments. However, from an ethical perspective, you are obliged to respond to what you observe in the advice relationship with your client.

So, how do you make those judgements? It’s challenging and early warning signs are often subtle. You may notice repeated confusion about previously explained (and understood) concepts, inconsistent or contradictory instructions, or difficulty recalling earlier decisions and their rationale. A client who once confidently engaged with discussions may begin to defer decision making, become anxious when choices are presented or rely heavily on written prompts. In isolation, none of these signs establishes incapacity; collectively they indicate heightened vulnerability and should be a red flag.

Family involvement may resolve issues or can potentially intensify the complexity of the situation. As cognitive decline progresses, adult children or carers may step in. It is important to remain alert to the risk that family pressure can interfere with decision-making. This can occur whether those pressures are well-intentioned or self-serving. The client’s interests must remain central, even when others speak authoritatively on their behalf.

Ethical practice in this grey zone of cognitive impairment may mean you need to slow down the advice process. Strategies could include breaking your advice into smaller steps, revisiting decisions across multiple meetings or narrowing the scope of advice. In some cases, you may have to defer or decline to implement recommendations until you are satisfied your client’s best interests are adequately protected.

Alignment with the Code of Ethics

Working with cognitively impaired clients is challenging but is a time when delivering advice that is compliant with the Code of Ethics becomes increasingly important:

Informed consent

Informed consent is not established by disclosure alone. In the context of vulnerable clients –particularly older clients or those experiencing cognitive change – ethical consent requires you to be satisfied that your client genuinely understands the advice, its implications and its alternatives. A signed authority or SOA acknowledgement may demonstrate procedural compliance, but it does not necessarily confirm informed consent.

Adequate time has been identified as a critical element of informed consent. Vulnerable clients may require longer meetings, multiple discussions or time between meetings to reflect and ask further questions. They may wish to involve other family members. Ethical advice in such circumstances may require you to slow down the advice process.

Allowing the client to have time for reflection can reduce the risk of decisions being made under pressure, whether that pressure comes from family members or market conditions. It is important to be cautious about advice delivered or implemented in a single meeting where vulnerability is present.

Where you are not satisfied that a client understands your advice, proceeding may breach the spirit of the Code of Ethics, even if legal requirements have been met. In these situations, ethical options may include:

• Further explanation using alternative communication methods
• Deferring implementation until understanding improves
• Narrowing or staging your advice to reduce its complexity
• Involving appropriate support persons (with the client’s consent)
• Declining to proceed if informed consent cannot be established.

Importantly, the ethical response to unclear understanding is not to push through or rely on documentation as protection. In this scenario, to act conservatively will generally be in the client’s best interests.

Alignment with the Code of Ethics

Obtaining informed consent will be more challenging when your client has identified vulnerabilities. The following standards in the Code of Ethics must be considered with respect to vulnerabilities and informed consent. 

Family, Powers of Attorney and Conflicted Loyalties

As your clients age, it is natural for their adult children to take a more active role in their parents’ financial affairs. In most cases, this involvement is well-intentioned support, and the children (or other relatives) act with their parents’ best interests at heart. In some cases however, intent may be less positive and there may be a point where support shifts into control.

‘Inheritance impatience’ has been widely documented. This term is described as ‘the phenomenon where heirs become cognitively or emotionally entitled to a family member’s wealth before their passing’^[4].  This often leads the impatient family member to pressure ageing parents into financial decisions that benefit the beneficiaries rather than your clients. This is increasingly a driver of elder financial abuse in Australia and often manifests through the misuse of legal instruments to accelerate the transfer of wealth. Elder abuse will be discussed in more detail in part two of this article.

Advisers need to be alert to adult children viewing their parents’ superannuation, home or other assets as rightfully their own. This mindset can lead to E/POAs making decisions that preserve the capital for the beneficiaries rather than funding the high-quality care their parents (or other relatives) require.

For the adviser, the big challenge lies in honouring the legal authority of an E/POA while maintaining their client’s best interests.

To protect the client, yourself and your practice, it is important to document everything. If a family member attempts to override a client’s known wishes, you should refer to the Statement of Advice created when the client had full capacity. While a legal document grants a family member the right to sign papers, it does not grant them the right to erode the client’s autonomy for their own future gain.

Case studies

The following case studies are loosely based on those published by ASIC and AFCA. They have been amended to better fit the subject matter of this article; names of people and places have been changed.

Case study one: Cognitive decline

Alexander is a senior financial planner with ACME Advice. His client, Dorothy, is 78, and has been widowed for several years. Dorothy has been Alexander’s client for 15 years, has a $1.2 million portfolio and has historically been sharp, conservative and very organised.

During an annual review in early 2024, Alexander noticed subtle shifts in Dorothy’s behaviour. She repeated the same question regarding her franking credits several times and seemed uncharacteristically overwhelmed by a simple rebalancing proposal. Her son Marcus began attending meetings, frequently finishing her sentences and trying to speed up the process. Alarmingly, he started to push for a large one-off withdrawal from Dorothy’s portfolio to fund his own business venture, claiming it was “what Mum wants, I’ll get it eventually.”

Alexander recognised that Dorothy was displaying signs of potential cognitive decline and Marcus was showing classic inheritance impatience.

Alexander realised that proceeding with business as usual would potentially be an ethical breach as Dorothy seemed inclined to agree to the withdrawal, despite it not being in her best interests. As such, he implemented the following adjustments to his process:

1. Alexander insisted on a brief, private session with Dorothy before Marcus joined the meeting. This allowed him to gauge her uncoerced intent and assess her capacity without influence from her son.
2. He simplified the discussion, using visual aids and plain English summaries to ensure Dorothy could grasp the longer-term implications of the proposed withdrawal.
3. Rather than seeking a signature on the day, Alexander implemented a mandatory 48-hour cooling-off period. He encouraged Dorothy to sleep on the decision and documented her rationale in her own words.

Alexander recognised that his primary duty was to protect Dorothy’s interests, even if it meant frustrating Marcus, a potential future client. He analysed Marcus’s requested withdrawal and determined that while Dorothy wanted to help Marcus, the capital depletion would risk her ability to fund a Refundable Accommodation Deposit should she need high-level residential care in the future. Alexander advised against the full amount, prioritising Dorothy’s longevity risk over Marcus’s liquidity needs.

Alexander also documented the high risk of undue influence. He made file notes to record specific instances where Dorothy’s verbal instructions contradicted her historical financial values, creating a paper trail to protect her from financial exploitation in the future.

Ultimately, Dorothy agreed to a smaller withdrawal to support her son. Alexander’s proactive stance prevented a significant erosion of Dorothy’s capital, and she remained in a secure financial position. At the same time, ACME Advice avoided the significant compliance risk of facilitating a transaction under duress.

Alexander’s actions saw him comply with his ethical obligations. Importantly, he upheld the following standards.

Case study two: Misuse of EPOA

Adviser Bruce is the principal of a mid-tier advice firm, ACME Investments.  His client Michael, aged 82, lives with advanced Alzheimer’s disease. His son Patrick holds an EPOA.

In March 2025, Michael’s cognitive health declined to the point where he was no longer capable of making financial decisions. His son, Patrick, activated his Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA). Bruce, who had managed Michael’s substantial portfolio for a decade, saw an opportunity to meet the firm’s internal capital targets.

Bruce proposed a strategic shift to Patrick. His recommendation was to liquidate $1.2 million (50 percent) of Michael’s blue-chip shares to invest in a private, unlisted property development fund being promoted by ACME Investments’ licensee. To secure Patrick’s cooperation, Bruce offered a referral fee – a hidden 2% ($24,000) kickback, to be paid to Patrick personally under the guise of an administrative consultant fee.

The ethical and legal ramifications for Bruce documented by the regulator are severe:

• Disciplinary action that would likely result in a permanent banning from the industry
• Michael’s estate or other family members could sue Bruce and his firm for the loss of capital and the recovery of the commission paid to Patrick
• In many Australian states, the deliberate misuse of an EPOA for financial gain can lead to criminal prosecution for fraud or theft.

Bruce failed to act as a fiduciary and potentially breached the following standards:

Protecting vulnerable clients is not just a regulatory expectation, it is central to maintaining trust in financial advice as a profession. The surge in cognitive decline and other vulnerabilities across Australia – particularly among ageing clients – represents a shift in the financial services landscape.

The differing paths taken by case study advisers Alexander and Bruce underscore how profoundly the role of the financial adviser has evolved. Advisers now play an essential role to preserve their clients’ wealth and dignity, particularly where family dynamics and inheritance expectations threaten to overwhelm objective judgement. In such circumstances, ethical financial advice can be the difference between protection and unintended harm.

Part two of this article, to be published March 2026, will explore elder financial abuse and provide a practical framework for assessing client vulnerabilities within an advice practice.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.5 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.5 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism & Ethics (0.5 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.5 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———

Notes:
[1] ASIC’s expectations for protecting vulnerable customers, November 2020
[2] https://www.dementia.org.au/about-dementia/dementia-facts-and-figures
[3] National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), Economic cost of dementia in Australia 2016-2056, February 2017
[4]  National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study, Australian Institute of Family Studies, December 2021

The post CPD: Ethical financial advice for vulnerable clients – part one appeared first on AdviserVoice.

Adherence to the Code of Ethics can avoid risk of criminal activity in your practice.

Ethical standards are the foundation of financial advice, defining the trust and professional bond between advisers and their clients. While most professionals operate with integrity, a small minority within the industry act with criminal intent. This article, proudly sponsored by GSFM, explores the complex relationship between ethical conduct and criminal behaviour in the financial advice sector.

Financial advice serves a vital function, empowering individuals and organisations to make educated choices regarding their economic prospects. In a world of increasing complexity and market volatility, the insight provided by seasoned professionals often dictates the boundary between financial security and hardship. Professional guidance transforms overwhelming data into actionable strategy, ensuring that long-term stability remains achievable for everyone.

From retirement and investment planning to debt and estate management, advisers help clients navigate market intricacies while mitigating risks and capturing growth. By offering tailored strategies and fostering trust-based partnerships, these professionals provide the support necessary for clients to reach their objectives. This personalised approach is essential for securing a prosperous and stable future in an unpredictable global economy.

Ethical considerations are the cornerstone of financial advice, defining the professional bond and the trust that sustains it. Central to this integrity is the principle of fiduciary duty, which requires advisers to act with total loyalty and good faith toward their clients. This commitment ensures that the client’s welfare remains the primary focus of every recommendation and strategic decision made.

This duty requires providing unbiased advice, disclosing all conflicts of interest and prioritising client best interests over personal or corporate gain. Transparency and professionalism are the core pillars of this ethical framework, as highlighted in the Financial Planners and Advisers Code of Ethics 2019 (Code of Ethics). Such standards ensure that every individual is fully informed and capable of making decisions that reflect their specific goals and risk tolerance.

To meet these rigorous standards, advisers must comply with all regulatory requirements while continuously evolving their professional knowledge and technical skills. By embracing these ethical principles, advisers do more than just follow the law; they protect the integrity of the entire financial profession. Ultimately, this dedication builds more resilient, respectful relationships that benefit both advisers and consumers over the long term.

Ethics and financial advice

There are two types of ethics relevant to financial advice: deontological ethics and virtue ethics.

Deontological ethics

Deontological ethics, rooted in Greek philosophy, emphasises the intrinsic relationship between duty and the morality of human behaviour. The term itself is derived from the Greek words deon, meaning ‘duty’ and logos, meaning ‘science’ or ‘study’. This framework suggests that the rightness of an act is found in the motive of the actor rather than the final result.

This ethical branch holds significant relevance for the financial advice profession. Within this framework, an adviser’s actions are judged by their adherence to established moral principles and rules, rather than their eventual outcomes. In practice, deontology stresses the necessity of following professional standards even when different choices might lead to greater financial benefits or more favourable short-term results.

Advisers operating under this framework, particularly through the industry’s Code of Ethics, are guided by moral imperatives such as honesty, integrity and transparency. They recognise a fundamental duty to act in their clients’ best interests, maintain strict confidentiality and proactively avoid conflicts of interest. For these professionals, the ‘right’ thing to do is defined by the rules of the profession.

A deontologist views a breach of ethical standards as a failure to fulfill a professional obligation. To them, the solution is to re-establish the rule of law and ensure future compliance with the Code of Ethics.

By prioritising ethical duties over personal gain or the pursuit of profit, advisers practicing deontology contribute to the cultivation of trust and credibility within the sector. This commitment fosters enduring relationships built on principles of honesty and ethical conduct. It ensures that the integrity of the profession remains intact, regardless of market volatility or

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics is rooted in the deliberate cultivation of character and moral excellence. Within this philosophical framework, the focus shifts from merely adhering to external rules or duties to embodying internal qualities such as integrity, honesty, prudence and fairness. It suggests that ethical behaviour is not a checklist of obligations, but a natural reflection of a person’s ingrained habits and disposition.

For financial advisers, virtue ethics emphasises the importance of developing a virtuous character that instinctively guides their daily decision-making and professional behaviour. A virtue ethicist would view a breach of the Code of Ethics as a symptom of a deeper problem: the adviser lacks the internalised virtues – such as honesty, fairness or diligence – required for the job.

Advisers practicing this approach typically prioritise building trust and fostering meaningful relationships with clients based on mutual respect and empathy. They strive to demonstrate excellence in all aspects of their practice, from providing unbiased guidance to acting with genuine transparency in every transaction.

By embracing virtue ethics, financial advisers do more than just uphold high standards; they contribute to a broader culture of integrity and trust within the entire financial sector. This focus on character enhances the overall well-being of their clients while strengthening the profession’s reputation within the community. Ultimately, it creates a self-sustaining environment where ethical conduct is the standard rather than the exception.

In the context of the Code of Ethics, this approach aligns perfectly with the requirement for advisers to exercise ‘professional judgment’. While a rule can tell you what to do, virtue gives you the wisdom to know how to do it well in complex, real-world situations.

To illustrate deontological and virtue ethics in practice, let’s apply both lenses to a common dilemma: an adviser who recommends a slightly higher-fee managed account because it has a simpler administrative platform for the practice.

The deontological approach (the ‘duty’ view)

A Deontologist doesn’t care if the client ends up making money anyway; they care that a rule was bypassed.

The problem: The adviser did not act in the client’s best interests, potentially violating standards one, two and five.

The resolution: The adviser is disciplined because they failed to follow the Code. The solution is to reinforce the rules. The focus is on the fact that the action of choosing a higher-fee product for administrative ease is inherently a breach of the contract between the professional and the public.

The virtue ethics approach (the ‘character’ view)

A virtue ethicist looks at the adviser’s disposition. They aren’t just looking for a bad act; they are looking for a bad habit.

The problem: The adviser displayed the vice of self-interest rather than the virtue of integrity. They lacked the practical wisdom to see that their ease of doing business should never outweigh a client’s best interests.

The resolution: The solution involves mentorship; the adviser needs to be retrained to value the client’s outcome as their own. The goal is to develop a character so strong that even if a loophole in the rules existed, the adviser would still choose the lower-fee product because they always put their clients’ best interests before their own.

However, both deontological and virtue ethics are relevant to financial advisers. Both are enshrined in the values upon which the twelve ethical standards are based (figure one). Financial advisers are required to act in a way that demonstrates, realises and promotes each of these values. Further, the law intends that all provisions of the Code of Ethics are to be read and applied in a way that promotes the following values. While the values detailed in figure one can be said to enshrine value ethics, the standards themselves (figure two) are an example of deontological ethics.

Each of the five values relates to specific ethical standards (figure two) that must be applied to all interactions with every client. As such, to meet the spirit and legal obligations of the Code, advisers must embrace both deontological ethics and virtue ethics.

Ethics and criminal behaviour

Navigating the ethical landscape of financial advice is rarely simple. Advisers must manage a daily gauntlet of unforeseen conflicts of interest, competing fiduciary duties and regulatory loopholes that often create challenging grey areas.

In 2025, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) significantly increased its enforcement activity, driven by a 50 percent rise in investigations and a 20 percent increase in civil proceedings^[1].

Enforcement actions range from numerous corporate matters, such as those related to insolvency or failing to maintain licence conditions even if not actively providing financial services, through to the more criminal: cases of fraud, pump and dump activity, insider trading, providing unlicensed financial advice and dishonest conduct.

Despite several sensational trade press headlines in 2025, criminal actions within the financial advice sector remains rare. There is a tendency to approach enforcement under civil rather than criminal law. However, when high-profile cases emerge, they typically gain a disproportionate level of notoriety.

By way of example, is the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds collapse. As of late 2025, ASIC is treating this collapse as a highly complex, large-scale civil enforcement investigation rather than a criminal prosecution, although criminal charges have not been ruled out. The regulator has over 40 people investigating the matter and anticipates further enforcement actions in 2025-2026. The headlines and ripple effects are expected to continue well into 2026.

Described by ASIC as ‘industrial-scale misconduct’ involving over $1 billion of investor funds, such media-driven ‘spectre’ of wrongdoing can unfairly cloud an industry predicated on trust. Such instances underscore the vital importance of standard twelve of the Code of Ethics, which mandates that advisers not only uphold ethical standards themselves but also hold their peers accountable to protect the public interest.

ASIC’s regulatory powers

ASIC’s primary objectives are to facilitate markets, promote trust and confidence in the financial system, and take action to enforce the laws it administers, which includes the Code of Ethics. Consequently, ASIC is empowered to take a range of criminal, civil and administrative action to address alleged misconduct within its jurisdiction.

ASIC investigates and takes enforcement action to detect, disrupt and respond to unlawful conduct. It aims to prevent and deter actual and future misconduct, improve standards and behaviours within its regulated population and importantly, reduce the risk of harm to Australian consumers and investors.

When deciding whether to investigate and take enforcement action, ASIC considers a range of factors that vary according to the nature and circumstances of the suspected misconduct. However, ASIC typically considers the following four factors when selecting matters for formal investigation and possible enforcement action:

1. Areas of significant harm
2. Broader public benefit
3. Issues specific to the case
4. Alternatives to formal investigation^[2].

ASIC focuses its enforcement actions on preventing and addressing significant harm to consumers, markets and our financial system and prioritise those that involve:

• Actual or potential harm to vulnerable consumers or investors, particularly if the behaviour is predatory
• Misconduct that has caused or may cause widespread public harm
• Misconduct that is likely to have a significant market impact, which includes its impact on market integrity and the confidence of investors and consumers
• Misconduct that is systemic or widespread
• Misconduct that has recently emerged or is part of a growing trend.

There are three types of enforcement action ASIC may pursue, and it may take one or more of these to address a contravention of the law:

• Criminal proceedings
• Civil proceedings
• Administrative and other enforcement action.

The type of action taken is subject to what the laws governing the particular misconduct allow.

In the case of criminal proceedings, the laws administered by ASIC permit the courts to impose criminal sanctions for conduct ranging from minor regulatory offences to serious offences involving dishonesty. Examples of the sanctions that may be imposed are prison terms, criminal fines and court orders such as community service.

ASIC is most likely to pursue criminal proceedings in cases of serious and harmful wrongdoing, with the view to deter similar misconduct in the future. It generally considers criminal proceedings for offences that involve serious misconduct that is dishonest, intentional or highly reckless, even when civil action is also available.

Criminality and advice

So, what sort of action could result in ASIC instigating criminal proceedings? Here are just a few examples.

Fraud

Fraud is, unfortunately, the most common criminal offence perpetuated by advisers against their clients. Defined as “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain” by the Oxford dictionary, fraud can take a range of forms including:

• Falsifying documents
• Forging signatures on documents to authorise transactions without the client’s knowledge or consent
• Having money paid into personal accounts
• Running ponzi schemes
• Fraudulent investment schemes
• Elaborate investment ruses.

Fraud potentially breaches a number of ethical standards, including:

Money laundering

Financial advisers may knowingly (or unknowingly) facilitate money laundering activities by helping clients disguise the origins of illicit funds through complex financial transactions. This can involve structuring transactions to avoid reporting requirements or knowingly investing proceeds from criminal activities.

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act was introduced in 2006 and was designed to prevent and combat these crimes, which is essential to protect the integrity and stability of financial markets and the global financial system.

Holders of an Australian Financial Services Licence, including financial advisers, need to complete Part B of an AML/CTF program. Part B is focused on identifying clients and beneficial owners, including politically exposed persons.

However, it is important to note that major reforms to the AML/CTF Act and its rules are taking effect this year. For current reporting entities, such as existing AFSL holders, these new program requirements generally commence on 31 March 2026.

In broad terms, the new legislation officially removes the prescriptive requirement to separate AML/CTF programs into Part A and Part B. Businesses will now have the flexibility to organise their AML/CTF programs, provided they meet the overall obligation to identify, mitigate and manage risk.

Even though the Part B label is being phased out, the substance of the obligation remains:

• You must still identify clients and beneficial owners
• Identifying and managing risks associated with Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) remains a mandatory component of due diligence

An adviser who is sloppy with paperwork may face enforcement action but is unlikely to face criminal proceedings. However, those found to have deliberately flouted the law with nefarious intent would face more serious charges.

In the situation where an adviser has been found to breach AML/CTF requirements, it potentially breaches the following ethical standards:

Insider trading

Strengthening investigation and prosecution of insider trading conduct is one of ASIC’s enforcement priorities for 2026. Insider trading breaches Section 1043A of the Corporations Act 2001 and prohibits a person from trading in listed securities while in possession of non-public, price-sensitive information.

The ASX regulatory guide explicitly states that Key Management Personnel, employees and family members are not permitted to trade when there is sensitive information not yet publicly disclosed. Inside information can easily come across an adviser’s path in the daily course of business and there’s nothing wrong with that – as long as they don’t act on it. Examples could include:

• A client who discusses a significant new contract won or issued by their business when either party to that contract is a listed company
• A friend who bemoans a substantial revenue hit for the listed company they work for and the potential ramifications
• Dinner party conversation in which you learn of a major merger between two listed companies
• An event at which a fellow attendee excitedly tells you how close his firm is to a significant innovation that will potentially boost the company’s share price
• An acquaintance working at the local council who happens to mention the reclassification of an area of commercial property to residential zoning.

While being in possession of said inside information is not against the law, advising a client to act upon it is, or acting on the client’s behalf, would likely breach the following standards:

Dishonest conduct

As with so many acts of criminal behaviour, dishonest conduct can be viewed on a continuum, one where a first or minor misdemeanour may result in a minor enforcement action, through to more serious cases that face a criminal trial. Examples can include:

• Misrepresentation of a service offering
• Misrepresentation of qualifications and abilities of individuals and/or a business
• Misrepresentation of financial products
• Churning
• Ponzi schemes
• Pump and dump schemes

Tax evasion

While some tax minimisation strategies may be legal or exploit the grey zone between right and wrong, tax evasion is illegal. A small number of advisers may assist clients to evade tax by providing false information for tax returns, hiding income and assets offshore, or by using other tax avoidance strategies. Tax evasion is a serious crime that can result in criminal charges and severe penalties from both ASIC and the ATO.

Ethics, criminality and your practice

In a financial advice practice, maintaining ethical standards is not just about your own conduct but also about the actions of your colleagues and referral partners. Regular education and reinforcement of ethical practices are crucial to ensure the integrity of your business and relationships.

Dealing with ethical dilemmas, which can sometimes exist in shades of grey, requires time and effort for resolution. However, addressing these challenges can offer valuable insights and contribute to the ongoing improvement of your practice, helping to prevent or resolve similar issues in the future. In cases where dilemmas edge on criminality – or are well down that path – quick action is required.

It is easier to take appropriate action when your practice has procedures in place to deal with issues. These could include:

• A code of conduct that embodies the Code of Ethics and ethical practice
• Well documented policies and procedures that include an escalation policy in the event of malfeasance or criminal behaviour
• Regular training sessions for staff that use real-life examples and case studies to facilitate meaningful training and discussion within your team
• Support for team members who raise issues, including whistle-blower protection

The presence of ethical grey areas underscores the importance of alignment among all employees. You cannot assume that each of your team shares a highly developed ethical sense consistent with your expectations. Therefore, ongoing education, restatement, and reinforcement of integrity, corporate values and ethical behaviour are essential components of your educational efforts.

Case studies

The following case studies are based on real events; however, the names of people and organisations have been changed, and some details altered. The case studies have been drawn from ASIC and for each, potential breaches of the Code of Ethics are identified.

Case study one: The ‘mega returns’ fraud – ponzi scheme

In 2025, a long-running and significant ponzi scheme investigation reached its legal conclusion with the sentencing of Perth-based adviser Mark from ACME Advice. Between 2014 and 2019, Mark ran an unregistered managed investment scheme through his personal company, one that was unrelated to ACME Advice. However, he used his role as an adviser to promote his illegal scheme.

Mark targeted select high net wealth investors, many from his own social and community circles, promising ‘mega returns’ by supposedly leveraging international debt markets and high-yield private placement programs. In reality, no such investments existed.

The mechanics of the scheme

Mark operated a classic ponzi scheme. Instead of generating profit through market trading, he maintained the illusion of success by:

• Pooling investor money into personal and company bank accounts
• Paying ‘interest’ to early investors using the capital deposits of newer investors
• Building false trust; he provided investors with regular updates painting a positive picture of imminent massive payouts to discourage them from withdrawing their principal.

The investigation and collapse

The scheme began to unravel in 2019 when ASIC obtained asset preservation orders. In December 2020, the federal court ordered the winding up of the scheme and noted that it was operated by an entity that did not have an AFSL. The court appointed liquidators, with the primary role to identify, seize and sell Mark’s assets to distribute any remaining value to creditors.

Early in the investigation, it was revealed that while over $250 million had flowed through the scheme’s accounts, the majority had either been paid out to earlier investors as ‘returns’ or had been spent; this left a substantial gap between what was owed to investors and what was available.

Mark was eventually charged with more than 40 counts of fraud.

Verdict and sentencing

Most investors experienced substantial losses, with many unlikely to recover their full principal investment. Mark was found guilty of all counts of fraud, totalling nearly $35 million and relating to six specific investors. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 12 years.

Mark’s actions saw him potentially breach several standards in the Code of Ethics, including:

Case study two: Fraud

Following an extensive ASIC investigation, adviser Michelle, director of ACME Investment and Coaching, currently faces criminal prosecution. The case centres on an unregistered investment scheme that allegedly defrauded investors of millions of dollars through misrepresentations and the improper handling of funds.

In March 2023, the federal court found that ACME Investment and Coaching was operating an unregistered managed investment scheme and carrying on a financial services business without a licence. It also noted the falsification of books relating to the company, specifically concerning the company’s annual returns.

The court ordered that the firm be wound up on just and equitable grounds. Liquidators found that the business had minimal legitimate revenue and exhibited the hallmarks of a ponzi-style structure.

The red flags noted by ASIC include:

• Promises of guaranteed high returns – Michelle allegedly enticed investors with promises of consistent, high-yield returns, often cited as being around 15% per annum
• The scheme was framed as a ‘private loan’ arrangement or part of a ‘wealth coaching’ program rather than a financial product
• A lack of legitimate revenue streams as identified by the liquidators; it was discovered that the company had no discernible business model or significant source of legitimate income
• Lack of an AFSL, which means no professional indemnity insurance, dispute resolution memberships (such as AFCA) or regular audits. Operating without an AFSL means investors have almost no regulatory safety net
• The scheme grew through social referral networking, word-of-mouth and social connections, which created a false sense of security and exclusivity.

The charges brought against Michelle include a combination of state-based criminal law and Commonwealth corporate regulations. In total, more than 20 counts of fraud relating to more than $4 million in investor funds. As well as charges under the state-based laws, Michelle faces additional charges under federal corporate law, including:

• Section 184 (5 counts): failing to act in good faith in the exercise of her powers and duties as a director. These charges relate to the use of approximately $2.5 million.
• Section 1307 (5 counts): Falsifying books relating to a company, specifically concerning the company’s annual returns.

While the case won’t be heard until later in 2026, potential penalties include:

• a maximum of 15 years’ imprisonment per offence in relation to Section 184
• a breach of Section 1307 carries up to five years per offence.

Michelle’s actions saw her potentially breach several standards in the Code of Ethics, including: 

Case study three: Misappropriation of retirement savings

In early 2025, Kevin, former financial adviser and director of ACME Financial Freedom, was sentenced in relation to a scheme that targeted the retirement savings of his clients.

An ASIC investigation found that over 2019-2020, Kevin abused his position of trust to misappropriate funds from his clients’ superannuation accounts. He did this by submitting ad-hoc adviser fee forms to a specific super fund trustee. These forms purported to authorise the withdrawal of fees from his clients’ ACME Super superannuation accounts.

The clients had no knowledge of these fees, had never signed the forms and did not consent to the withdrawals. To cover his tracks, Kevin created fictitious client file notes that detailed non-existent conversations where clients supposedly agreed to the fees.

Kevin was prosecuted under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), specifically section 1041G, engaging in dishonest conduct in the course of carrying on a financial services business.

Kevin pleaded guilty to a consolidated charge of dishonest conduct and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, suspended on the condition of a five-year good behaviour bond. He was ordered to pay a $20,000 pecuniary penalty and make full reparation to the trustee for the money stolen.

Kevin’s actions saw him potentially breach several standards in the Code of Ethics, including:

The preservation of the industry’s integrity is a collective mandate. From regulatory bodies to individual practices, every stakeholder must be a guardian of the highest ethical standards. By proactively confronting ethical dilemmas and rooting out criminal conduct, the profession can secure a future where financial advice is defined by an unbreakable bond of trust, transparency and accountability. This is good for advisers, consumers and the industry as a whole.

Take the FAAA accredited quiz to earn 0.75 CPD hour:

CPD Quiz

The following CPD quiz is accredited by the FAAA at 0.75 hour.

Legislated CPD Area: Professionalism & Ethics (0.75 hrs)

ASIC Knowledge Requirements: Ethics (0.75 hrs)

please log in to start this quiz

———

Notes:
[1] ASIC Media Release: ASIC’s annual report reveals strong growth in enforcement action and investigations and keen focus on strengthening markets, October 2025
[2]  https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/asic-investigations-and-enforcement/asic-s-approach-to-enforcement/

The post CPD: Lessons from ethical failures in financial advice appeared first on AdviserVoice.