FADC's first hearing over in a flash
The first hearing of the Financial Advisers Disciplinary Committee lasted just seven minutes. Philip Macalister was at the meeting and explains what happened.
Monday, August 5th 2013, 10:45AM 
1 Comment
Once chairman, retired judge Sir Bruce Robertson, introduced his two fellow commissioners, Tracey Berry and David Macdonald, the FMA case against alleged Ponzi scheme operator David Ross was called.
The FMA sought an adjournment of the hearing as Ross is facing criminal charges in the District Court in Wellington.
Counsel for the FMA said that it was appropriate to seek the adjournment under Human Rights Act as the FADC hearing could prejudice the District Court hearing.
Robertson agreed to the adjournment and sought clarification that Ross could no longer operate as an adviser.
FMA counsel said the FMA suspended Ross’s AFA licence earlier. In February Ross had to update his details on the Financial Services Provider Register. He did not do this and subsequently has been deregistered as a financial adviser.
Robertson adjourned the hearing until February 1 2014 to give time for the court case, however he doubted the FADC hearing would resume then as the court system takes time.
“I doubt any final resolution will have taken place by that time,” he said.
However he advised the FMA it could resume the hearing earlier if it made the appropriate request.
The second case, FMA v Musaphia was also adjourned, but for very different reasons.
Originally Musaphia faced four charges relating to breaches of Code of the Financial Advisers Code of Conduct.
Counsel advised the hearing that the parties had agreed the statement of facts in three of these charges.
The fourth charge had been withdrawn.
Robertson made an order to keep the summary of facts confidential as there was a question about the identity of the client involved in the matter. He said that the client was not the complainant and there were questions around whether the identity of the client should be made public.
Roberston asked the FMA to file documents by August 13, but was told that they would be filed sometime this week.
He subsequently adjourned the case until August 16.
| « Regulation 'not successful' | Increasing numbers of RFAs moving towards AFA status » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
If the facts of the 3 continuing cases were agreed, why didn't the case continue today? Phil, can you enlighten us to why it was adjourned?
Philip's Response: Thanks Murray. It appears the issue is around revealing the identity of the client. The client was not the complainant and counsel are making submissions on this issue.
We did attempt to seek clarification from counsel, however as the chairman had essentially suppressed (my term not his) the agreed statement of facts counsel weren't forthcoming on assisting here.