Adviser X faces disciplinary committee

The Financial Advisers Disciplinary Committee looks set to hear its first full case, but is suppressing details of the financial adviser facing charges.

Wednesday, May 28th 2014, 7:00AM 3 Comments

The committee has only recently revealed the case, which is due to be held tomorrow morning in Auckland.

Good Returns understands the defendant is a reasonably high profile adviser from one of the bigger groups.

Since the committee was established in 2010, it has made four decisions but all of these have been concluded without a full-blown hearings.

The advisers in these cases include David Ross, Stephen Musaphia, Graham Beecroft and Ian Bourke-Shaw.

Authorised Financial Advisers who appear before the committee are referred to it by the Financial Markets Authority, The disciplinary proceedings come from complaints about AFAs who have allegedly breached of the Code of Professional Conducte Code.

The FADC has the ability to make determinations and impose penalties ranging from recommending to the FMA that it cancel an AFA’s authorisation, through to imposing a fine not exceeding $10,000.

The panel hearing the case is made up of chairman and former High Court judge Sir Bruce Robertson, financial planner Simon Hassan and investment banker Peter Houghton. The majority of Houghton’s career has focused on providing investment research to fund managers’ globally. His last role was Global Head of Investment Research at Dresdner Kleinwort Investment Banking in the United Kingdom

« Beware the bank bond offers

IFA working on pro-bono offering »

Special Offers

Comments from our readers

On 28 May 2014 at 12:36 pm RedTape said:

a slap on the face with a red bus ticket for this real estate agent. With our regulations it would have been a loss of licence and maybe a pair of striped pj's

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/10090977/Estate-agent-censured-for-outbidding-client

On 28 May 2014 at 3:05 pm Brent Sheather said:

Supressing details of the financial adviser? I thought transparency was the new rule around these parts. Reminds me of a small town in the Bay of Plenty where there used to be two ways of getting name suppression when you went to court: either the judge would grant it or a payment to the court reporter had the same result.. lol.

Would be interesting to know why this name is supressed... there are all sorts of possibilities.

On 29 May 2014 at 7:47 am Bill said:

hey Red Tape

Is the accused a financial adviser or real estate agent??

Sign In to add your comment