ASIC has cancelled the registration of 10 SMSF auditors after they repeatedly failed to lodge annual statements, with all of them at least three statements behind and one with six outstanding.
All 10 were repeat offenders of failing to lodge annual statements, and all had previously had their registrations cancelled and then reinstated between 2016 and 2018.
The reinstatements came after each auditor requested that ASIC review its decision, which it did with a clearly stated expectation that they would comply with the obligation from then on.
“SMSF auditors play a fundamental role in promoting confidence and instilling trust in the SMSF sector, so it is crucial that they comply with their regulatory obligations,” ASIC commissioner Sean Hughes said.
“ASIC will continue to take action where SMSF auditors do not meet these obligations.”
Since July 2013, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 has required all SMSF auditors to be registered with ASIC to ensure they meet a base level of competency and skill.
Under Section 128G of the SISA, SMSF auditors are required to lodge a statement relating to the previous 12-month period within 30 days of the anniversary of their registration. These annual statements are collected as they provide important compliance information.
ASIC has informed all SMSF auditors that they must ensure their contact details are up to date and that if they have outstanding annual statements, their registration may be at risk.
The cancellations come after ASIC deregistered 12 SMSF auditors for a range of offences in April, and in March cancelled or imposed conditions on the registration of 18 SMSF auditors who were involved in reciprocal audit arrangements.
The 18 SMSF auditors were found to have undertaken reciprocal audit arrangements, which involved them auditing each other’s personal SMSFs. This meant there were no safeguards that could reduce the threats, ASIC declared that the auditors should not have entered into the arrangements.
The 10 SMSF auditors whose registrations were cancelled in the latest action are:
- Rajab Arabi – Kingsgrove, NSW
- Michael Awadalla – Rockdale, NSW
- Michael Donlon – Palm Beach, Queensland
- Jonathan Dundovic – Green Valley, NSW
- Jeffery Foden – Oakleigh, Victoria
- Jackie Lao – Carlton, NSW
- Kevin Leece – Werribee, Victoria
- Caren Moroney – Burrum Heads, Queensland
- Ronald Targett – Dee Why, NSW
- Antony Vidray – Waratah, NSW
$900 … that’s a bargain. Registered liquidators get charged $2500 per year PLUS a levy on EACH job they get just to remain registered. ASIC says it raises the funds to ‘supervise’ the insolvency profession but does very little to police errant and dishonest directors who are the real offenders! ASIC would struggle to track an elephant through snow. Time for a clean out there.
Paying to cancel is ridiculous. You pay to service. Where is the service here. Where is the Royal Commission into the obscene charging regime that ASIC operate under? Surely they have shown sufficient stupidity to warrant the taxpayers spending $10M on a Royal Commission!
There is absolutely no logic to the $900 fee…either the fee itself or the quantum. Cloud cuckoo land. Congrats to ASIC for proving they are masters of the ridiculous!
Meanwhile they still allow large firms to perform the administration and audit of funds with no repercussions.
Just waiting to be cancelled as I will not pay the stupid $900 fee. Who else has to pay to stop working???
Maybe it is cheaper and less time consuming to have ASIC cancel your SMSF auditors registration than pay the fee and do all the paperwork yourself, once you decided you do not want to be n SMSF auditor anymore.
These are the smart ones. ASIC charge you $900 to cancel your registration but all you have to do is simply not lodge your annual statement for a number of years and they do it for free.
Is the naming and shaming necessary? People make mistakes.
I suppose it is if you usually send your SMSF audits to them?
So Financial Advisers are the only ones who ASIC won’t review decisions around and just ban them for life? Seems fair
Do they ban FA’s for not lodging annual returns, or just for ‘real’ breaches that affect clients, like fraud & other scams?