This was an application where an order for asset preservation was sought by the applicant (ASIC) against the respondents in response to an ongoing investigation into potential misuse of client funds. The first respondent accepted they were a “relevant person” per the Corporations Act 2001 (“the Act”). However, the second respondent contended they were not an “associate of a relevant person” pursuant to section 15 of the Act.
Martin J discussed whether the second respondent satisfied the requirements outlined within s 15 of the Act to be considered an “associate of a relevant person”. His Honour considered the pathway which the funds undertook to must have been conducted, at least in part, by the second respondent, therefore the second respondent is to be considered an “associate of a relevant person”.
Martin J granted an asset preservation order pursuant to section 1323 of the Act against both respondents.
Matthew Doyle appeared for the first and second respondents, instructed by 23LEGAL.
The judgment is published here.
