ASIC v Union Standard International Group: Lessons for CFD Brokers

Introduction

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has taken significant action against Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd (USG), a Sydney-based issuer of over-the-counter derivatives. This case highlights the serious consequences of non-compliance with financial services regulations, particularly for holders of an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). The revocation of USG’s AFSL serves as a stark reminder of the stringent regulatory environment in Australia’s financial sector.

This article delves into the key findings of the Federal Court and the implications for CFD brokers and AFSL holders. We explore the systemic unconscionable conduct identified by the court, the importance of robust compliance frameworks, and the extraterritorial application of AFS licence obligations. By examining these aspects, this guide aims to provide valuable insights for strengthening compliance strategies and maintaining regulatory integrity in the financial services industry.

Overview of Union Standard International Group and ASIC’s Regulatory Action

USG’s Business Model and AFS Licence

Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd (USG), also known as USG FX, was a Sydney-based retail over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives issuer. USG FX operated under an Australian Financial Services (AFS) licence, specifically AFS licence 302792. This licence allowed USG to provide general advice, deal in, and make a market for derivatives and foreign exchange contracts, catering to both retail and wholesale clients.

Under its AFS Licence, USG offered financial products including contracts for difference (CFDs) and margin foreign exchange contracts. These products, issued by USG, allowed retail clients to trade on the movements of various financial markets. USG offered services for a decade, having obtained the AFS licence on 1 February 2016.

USG engaged corporate authorised representatives (CARs) to expand its reach. Europe FX (Maxi EFX Global AU Pty Ltd) and TradeFred (BrightAU Capital Pty Ltd) were former CARs operating under USG’s AFS licence. However, USG FX and its former Cars faced scrutiny over their business practices.

Timeline of ASIC’s Actions: Suspension and Cancellation of AFS Licence

ASIC’s regulatory actions unfolded over a period of months, beginning with the suspending and later cancelling the AFS licence of Union Standard. In July 2020, ASIC suspended the AFS licence of USG FX. This suspension, effective from July 2020 until 23 September 2020, was a direct consequence of USG entering external administration on 8 July 2020.

Subsequently, ASIC cancelled the AFS licence of USG on 14 September 2020 under Section 915B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). This cancellation followed the appointment of liquidators of USG by court order on 3 September 2020, with Andrew Cummins and Peter Krejci of BRI Ferrier (NSW) Pty Ltd appointed in this role as well.

Despite the AFS licence being cancelled, ASIC utilised its powers under Section 915H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The legislation allows liquidators to conduct certain necessary activities under their cancelled AFS licence. Essential tasks include establishing a dispute resolution scheme and arranging compensation for retail clients.

Initially set until 18 December 2020, these conditions were extended multiple times, ultimately until 16 September 2022, to facilitate the orderly winding down of operations and address client-related matters.

Key Findings of the Federal Court: Systemic Unconscionable Conduct

Systemic Unconscionable Conduct and Customer Losses

The Federal Court made a significant finding of systemic unconscionable conduct against USG and its former CARs, EuropeFX and TradeFred. This determination was central to the court’s judgment, highlighting a deeply concerning pattern of behaviour within these entities. The court considered the actions of EuropeFX and TradeFred as unacceptable per standards of financial service provision and that they warranted strong condemnation.

This systemic misconduct directly resulted in substantial financial losses for customers. Specifically, customers of EuropeFX and TradeFred suffered losses exceeding $83 million due to the extensive breaches of law perpetrated by these CFD issuers. 

Unethical Practices: High-Pressure Sales and Misleading Representations

The Federal Court’s findings also detailed several unethical practices employed by EuropeFX and TradeFred that disregarded ethical standards and regulatory obligations, prioritising profit over client welfare. These unethical practices included:

• High-Pressure Sales Tactics: Account managers employed aggressive strategies to encourage clients to deposit more funds. This involved persistent and undue pressure on customers to increase their investments, often regardless of the client’s financial situation or risk tolerance.
• Misleading Representations: EuropeFX and TradeFred made deceptive claims to clients, particularly regarding the potential for profits and the risks involved in CFD trading. These misrepresentations often downplayed the risks associated with CFDs while exaggerating the potential for financial gain.
• Targeting Vulnerable Customers: The onboarding processes of EuropeFX and TradeFred were designed to attract inexperienced or vulnerable customers. These companies actively sought individuals who lacked the financial literacy or experience to fully understand the complexities and risks of CFD trading, making them more susceptible to unethical practices.
• Incentivised Misconduct: Remuneration structures incentivised account managers to prioritise customer deposits over customer outcomes. Account managers were rewarded for encouraging clients to deposit more funds, creating a conflict of interest and a motivation to engage in high-pressure sales tactics and potentially misleading advice.
• Failure to Address Misconduct: Despite being aware of misconduct by account managers, EuropeFX and TradeFred failed to take adequate steps to address or rectify these issues. This failure to act on known misconduct further contributed to the systemic nature of the unconscionable conduct.

Breach of AFS Licence Obligations: Failure to Act Efficiently, Honestly and Fairly

Extraterritorial Application of AFS Licence Obligations

The Federal Court’s ruling inASIC v USG clarified a crucial aspect of AFS licence obligations, specifically their extraterritorial application. This landmark judgment confirmed that the duty for AFS licensees to operate efficiently, honestly, and fairly extends to financial services provided to customers residing outside Australia. Consequently, Australian financial services laws are not limited to domestic customers but also protect overseas clients of AFS licensees.

This precedent-setting decision highlights that Australian financial services laws, particularly the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), apply to the conduct of AFS licensees even when their services are offered or provided to clients in foreign jurisdictions. The court emphasised that once an AFS licence is granted, the obligation to act efficiently, honestly, and fairly applies to the financial services covered by that licence, irrespective of where or to whom these services are provided.

Providing Unlawful Services in China

A significant factor in USG FX breach of its AFS licence obligations was its provision of financial services to clients in China. The Federal Court determined that USG offered CFDs and margin foreign exchange contracts to Chinese customers in circumstances where such services were illegal under Chinese law.

Despite being aware, or reasonably ought to have been aware, of the legal restrictions in China, USG continued to provide these services without adequately warning customers of the potential legal ramifications they might face under Chinese law. This conduct was deemed by the court to be a critical failure in fulfilling the AFS licensee’s obligation to act efficiently, honestly, and fairly.

By offering services that were illegal in China and failing to inform their Chinese clients of the legal risks, USG not only exposed their clients to potential civil and criminal liabilities in a foreign jurisdiction but also demonstrated a disregard for their AFS licence obligations. This aspect of the case underscores the importance for AFSL holders to:

• Conduct thorough due diligence to ensure their services comply with the legal frameworks of all jurisdictions in which they operate.
• Obtain local legal advice when providing cross-border financial services.
• Implement robust compliance measures to prevent the provision of unlawful services.

Role of CARs and Licensee Responsibility

USG’s Liability for Conduct of EuropeFX and TradeFred

USG, as the holder of the AFS licence was found liable for the misconduct of its CARs, EuropeFX and TradeFred. The Federal Court’s decision underscored that under Australian law, an AFSL holder cannot delegate its responsibilities by appointing CARs.

The Federal Court determined that USG failed to ensure that the financial services provided under its licence were delivered efficiently, honestly, and fairly. Because EuropeFX and TradeFred operated under USG’s AFS licence, USG washeld accountable for CARs’ breaches.

This ruling highlights a critical principle for all AFSL holders: they should ensure that their CARs comply with financial services laws. The Federal Court clarified that ASIC holds the licence holder ultimately accountable for the conduct of those operating under their licence, reinforcing the importance of diligent oversight and control.

Importance of Oversight and Control of Representatives

ASIC v USG underscores the critical importance of oversight and control of representatives by AFSL holders. To ensure that the financial services covered by the licence are provided efficiently, honestly, and fairly, licensees must implement robust systems to monitor and manage the activities of their CARs. Without effective oversight, licensees risk being held liable for the misconduct of their representatives.

Effective oversight and control mechanisms are essential for several reasons:

• Compliance with Regulatory Obligations: Licensees are legally obligated to ensure that their CARs comply with all relevant financial services laws. Robust oversight systems help monitor and verify this compliance on an ongoing basis.
• Protection of Retail Clients: Oversight mechanisms protect retail clients from potential harm. By actively monitoring the conduct of representatives, licensees can identify and rectify practices detrimental to client interests, such as unconscionable conduct or misleading representations.
• Maintaining AFS Licence Integrity: Failures in oversight can lead to regulatory breaches and enforcement actions, including AFS licence suspension or cancellation. Strong control systems demonstrate a commitment to regulatory compliance and help maintain the integrity of the licence.
• Risk Management: Effective oversight is a key component of overall risk management. By monitoring the activities of CARs, licensees can identify and mitigate potential risks before they escalate into significant issues.

To achieve effective oversight, AFSLholders should consider implementing the following measures:

• Due Diligence in Representative Selection: Conduct thorough background checks and assessments before appointing CARs to ensure that they are fit and proper and possess the necessary competence and ethical standards.
• Clear Compliance Frameworks: Establish and communicate clear compliance policies and procedures that CARs must adhere to. Provide regular training and updates on regulatory requirements.
• Monitoring and Auditing Systems: Implement systems for ongoing monitoring of representative activities, including regular audits of their practices and client interactions. Utilise technology to track key metrics and identify potential red flags.
• Regular Communication and Reporting: Maintain open lines of communication with CARs and establish regular reporting requirements to stay informed about their operations and any potential issues.
• Prompt Remedial Action: Develop procedures for promptly addressing any instances of misconduct or non-compliance identified through monitoring or reporting. Take swift and decisive action to rectify issues and prevent recurrence.

Lessons for CFD Brokers: Compliance and Risk Management

Robust Compliance Frameworks and Internal Controls

For CFD brokers, establishing robust compliance frameworks and internal controls is not just a regulatory requirement but a fundamental necessity for sustainable operations and maintaining client trust. These frameworks ensure adherence to regulatory obligations and prevent practices that could mislead clients or undermine market integrity. Strong internal controls act as the backbone of a compliant operation, providing mechanisms to effectively monitor and manage activities.

To achieve robust compliance and internal controls, CFD brokers should consider the following key measures:

• Establish Strong Internal Controls:
  Implement robust systems and protocols to monitor daily operations and ensure adherence to regulatory expectations. Regular internal audits and compliance checks are crucial to verify that all regulatory obligations are consistently met. These audits should assess the effectiveness of existing controls and identify areas for improvement, ensuring ongoing adherence to regulatory standards.
• Implement Sophisticated Monitoring Systems:
  Utilise technology and automated systems to oversee day-to-day operations, flagging potential issues before they escalate. These systems should provide real-time insights into operational risks and compliance performance, enabling proactive intervention and risk mitigation.
• Ensure Regular Compliance Training:
  Provide frequent and updated training for all staff levels on compliance, ethical conduct, and regulatory changes. Continuous education helps reinforce ethical standards and keeps employees informed of evolving regulatory requirements, fostering a culture of compliance throughout the organisation.
• Conduct Regular Audits:
  Implement frequent internal audits and compliance checks to ensure all regulatory obligations, including ongoing disclosure and reporting, are met. Regular audits help identify gaps in compliance and ensure that all operations align with regulatory expectations, promoting a culture of continuous improvement.

Transparent Risk Disclosure and Client-Centric Conduct

Transparent risk disclosure and a client-centric approach are paramount for CFD brokers to build trust and operate ethically within the financial services industry. Prioritising client interests and ensuring they fully understand the risks involved in CFD trading is not only a regulatory expectation but also a cornerstone of responsible business practice. Misleading practices and inadequate risk disclosures can lead to significant client detriment and severe regulatory consequences, as highlighted in ASIC v USG.

To foster transparent risk disclosure and client-centric conduct, CFD brokers should focus on these key areas:

• Ensure Clear and Transparent Communication:
  Implement clear and transparent communication strategies, providing robust risk warnings during onboarding and throughout the client relationship. Avoid downplaying risks or promising unrealistic returns, as such misleading practices can lead to penalties and erode client trust.
• Provide Comprehensive Risk Disclosures:
  Ensure all clients, especially inexperienced or vulnerable ones, fully understand the risks of CFD trading. Disclosures should be unambiguous and highlight the potential for significant financial losses, enabling clients to make informed decisions about engaging in CFD trading.
• Prioritise Client Interests:
  Act in good faith and prioritise clients’ interests over the firm’s profits, avoiding conflicts of interest. Refrain from practices that incentivise client losses, and focus on delivering value and service that aligns with client needs and best interests. Ethical conduct should be embedded in the company culture and guide all decision-making processes.
• Avoid High-Pressure Sales Tactics:
  Refrain from aggressive sales tactics that pressure clients to deposit more funds or trade in higher volumes. Such practices are unethical and can trigger regulatory action, undermining the firm’s reputation and eroding client confidence.

Lessons for CFD Brokers: Extraterritorial Obligations and Global Compliance

Understanding and Complying with Overseas Laws

CFD brokers holding an AFS licence must recognise that their obligations extend beyond Australian borders. The ASIC v USG case clarified that the duty to act efficiently, honestly, and fairly applies to services offered to clients residing outside of Australia. This means that Australian financial services laws are not limited to domestic customers but also protect overseas clients of AFSL holders.

USG FX breached its AFS licence obligations by providing CFDs and margin foreign exchange contracts to Chinese customers, where such services were illegal under Chinese law. Despite being aware of, or reasonably ought to have been aware of, the legal restrictions in China, USG continued to provide these services without properly warning customers about potential legal issues under Chinese law.

For CFD brokers, it is crucial to conduct thorough due diligence to ensure compliance with the legal frameworks of all jurisdictions in which they operate. This includes:

• Seeking Local Legal Advice: Understand the specific financial services laws of each country.
• Implementing Robust Compliance Measures: Prevent offering unlawful services in certain jurisdictions.
• Providing Clear Warnings: Inform clients about potential legal risks they may face in their jurisdictions due to the services offered.

Implications for Cross-Border Financial Services

ASIC v USG has significant implications for Australian financial services laws and the provision of cross-border financial services. The Federal Court’s decision established a precedent that AFSlicence obligations are not confined to Australia. This means that AFSLholders must ensure their operations comply with Australian standards, regardless of where their clients are located.

This ruling reinforces that the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) applies to the conduct of AFSL holders even when services are provided to clients in foreign jurisdictions. The Federal Court highlighted that once an AFS licence is granted, the obligation to act honestly and fairly applies to all financial services covered by that licence, irrespective of the client’s location.

For CFD brokers and other AFSL holders, this means:

• Developing Global Compliance Frameworks: Consider international regulatory standards.
• Enhanced Scrutiny from ASIC: Increased oversight regarding overseas operations and client interactions.
• Increased Responsibility to Protect Retail Clients: Ensure protection from potential harm and legal risks associated with financial services, even for clients based outside Australia.

Consequences of Non-Compliance: Financial and Reputational Damage

Financial Penalties and License Cancellation

Non-compliance with regulatory obligations can lead to significant financial penalties for CFD brokers. In the case of USG, the Federal Court’s findings of systemic unconscionable conduct and breaches of its AFS licence have severe financial repercussions.

While the exact pecuniary penalties for USG, EuropeFX, and TradeFred are yet to be determined by the Federal Court, the potential for substantial fines is evident. Breaching the obligation to act efficiently, honestly, and fairly—a key aspect of the AFS licence—can now attract civil penalties, including:

• Millions of dollars in fines for corporations
• Multiples of the benefit derived or detriment avoided
• A significant percentage of annual turnover

These penalties are part of the reforms introduced after the Banking Royal Commission.

Beyond financial penalties, the ultimate consequence of serious non-compliance is the cancellation of the AFS licence. ASIC initially suspended USG’s AFS licence in July 2020 and cancelled it in September 2020 due to entering external administration.

The cancellation of an AFS licence effectively prevents a business from legally offering financial services in Australia, severely impacting its operations and viability. For CFD brokers, licence cancellation means an inability to continue operating, leading to:

• Business collapse
• Significant financial losses

Reputational Harm and Loss of Investor Confidence

Beyond immediate financial penalties and licence cancellation, non-compliance inflicts substantial reputational harm on CFD brokers. ASIC v USG has highlighted the severe reputational damage that can arise from regulatory breaches and unethical conduct.

Public findings of systemic unconscionable conduct, misleading practices, and failure to act honestly and fairly erode public trust and investor confidence. This reputational fallout extends beyond the specific entity involved, potentially affecting the broader Australian financial services sector.

Loss of investor confidence is a direct consequence of reputational damage. When a CFD broker is found to have engaged in misconduct, clients and potential investors lose trust in the firm’s integrity and ethical standards. Where customers suffered losses exceeding $83 million, ASIC v USG exemplifies how quickly confidence can be eroded.

Furthermore, media coverage of regulatory actions and court findings amplifies reputational damage, making it challenging for firms to recover and rebuild trust. For CFD brokers, maintaining a strong reputation built on compliance, transparency, and ethical conduct is crucial for long-term sustainability and success in the competitive financial services market.

The Role of ASIC and Regulatory Vigilance

ASIC’s Commitment to Consumer Protection

ASIC’s commitment to consumer protection is evident through its decisive actions against USG and its CARs. By intervening in the USG case, ASIC underscores its dedication to safeguarding vulnerable consumers within the financial services sector. This commitment is demonstrated through several proactive measures:

• Ensuring Fair and Honest Conduct: ASIC mandates that AFSL holders maintain integrity, especially those offering complex and high-risk products like CFDs.
• Protecting Retail Clients: The regulator focuses on preventing potential harm to retail clients by overseeing the practices of financial service providers.
• Taking Decisive Regulatory Actions: In this case, ASIC suspended and eventually cancelled the AFS licence of USG, and initiated civil penalty proceedings against the company and its representatives.

ASIC’s Deputy Chair, Sarah Court, emphasised that the regulator acted to “stand up for vulnerable consumers,” highlighting ASIC’s priority in protecting those most at risk in the financial market.

Proactive Regulatory Approach and Product Intervention Orders

ASIC adopts a proactive regulatory approach, utilising tools like product intervention orders to enhance consumer protections. A notable example of this strategy is the Product Intervention Order (PIO) targeting CFDs, which aims to mitigate risks for retail clients. Key aspects of the PIO include:

• Restrictions on Leverage: Limits are set on the amount of leverage that can be offered to retail clients, reducing the potential for significant financial losses.
• Standardised Margin Close-Out Rules: These rules ensure that positions are closed out consistently, preventing excessive losses.
• Measures Against Harmful Sales Practices: The PIO targets high-pressure sales tactics and other practices that could lead to consumer detriment.

Introduced in March 2021 and extended to May 2027, the PIO exemplifies ASIC’s commitment to adapting its regulatory strategies to protect consumers in the evolving financial landscape.

Conclusion

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) v Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd (No 4) [2024] FCA 1481 offers crucial lessons for contracts for difference (CFD) brokers holding an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). The Federal Court found USG and its former corporate authorised representatives (CARs) guilty of systemic unconscionable conduct and AFSL breaches, underscoring the severe consequences of non-compliance.

CFD brokers should embrace ethical conduct, robust compliance frameworks, and strong client protections to maintain their AFSL and ensure long-term business sustainability.

Navigating AFSL obligations can be complex, but our expert team at AFSL House is here to help. With deep expertise in Australian financial services laws, we provide tailored guidance to strengthen compliance and risk management practices. Contact us today to safeguard your business and protect your retail clients in an evolving regulatory landscape.

Frequently Asked Questions