Family Offices Regulatory Updates

Key dates

2025-01-01

Beginning of the general period identified by the SEC during which the charged entities allegedly filed Forms ADV containing material misrepresentations; the publication does not specify an exact start date.

2026-08-27

The SEC announced the charges, disclosed the requested remedies, stated that the 38 ERA filings had been removed from its website, and referenced its related investor alert.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to perform a documented, line-by-line validation of Form ADV Part 1 and applicable Form ADV Part 2 disclosures, including business addresses, telephone numbers, websites, ownership, control persons, regulatory status, assets, private funds, clients, and service providers.
• Firms should consider retaining contemporaneous evidence supporting material Form ADV representations, such as lease or office records, corporate and ownership documents, fund records, audited financial statements, auditor engagement evidence, and records supporting reported assets and advisory activities.
• ERA and registered adviser compliance programs may wish to establish independent verification of counterparties' SEC registration or ERA status through the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure system and should avoid treating an SEC filing, certificate, or website badge as conclusive proof of legitimacy.
• Firms that market investment advice to individuals should consider reviewing whether their regulatory status, Form ADV disclosures, and marketing materials accurately describe whether they are registered, exempt reporting, or otherwise authorized to provide services to retail investors.
• Compliance teams may wish to investigate repeated or highly similar ownership structures, numerical disclosures, addresses, telephone numbers, websites, auditor names, or filing patterns across related advisers as potential indicators of coordinated fraudulent filings.
• Firms should consider escalating unanswered SEC requests for records and preserving relevant books, records, communications, websites, and filing-support materials, because the SEC expressly relied on alleged failures to substantiate Form ADV information.
• Private fund sponsors and allocators may wish to verify that purported fund audits were performed by identifiable independent public accounting firms with appropriate federal or state registration or licensing, rather than relying solely on statements in Form ADV.
• Financial-crime and onboarding teams may wish to incorporate the SEC's PAUSE list, investor alerts, foreign-jurisdiction indicators, website authentication checks, and independent corporate-registration checks into risk-based due diligence for purported U.S. advisers.

What changed

This publication announces enforcement complaints rather than a new rule or generally applicable filing requirement. The SEC alleges violations of Section 204(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which governs adviser records and reports including Form ADV, and Section 207, which prohibits untrue statements or omissions in applications and reports filed under the Act. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, conduct-based injunctions preventing the defendants from filing Forms ADV as exempt reporting advisers, and civil penalties.

Key dates

2016-01-01

The period began during which the FCA found that the investor-visa scheme operated; the exact start date is not specified in the publication.

2019-01-01

The period ended during which the FCA found that the scheme operated; the exact end date is not specified in the publication.

2021-03-12

The FCA imposed restrictions preventing Dolfin from carrying on regulated activities, following concerns including its operation of the investor-visa funding scheme.

2021-06-01

Dolfin entered special administration; the exact date in June is not specified in the publication.

2022-02-17

The Home Office closed the Tier 1 investor visa route of entry to the UK.

2026-08-26

The FCA published the enforcement announcement concerning the bans, fines and Joukovski Decision Notice.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any product or client arrangement could create a misleading impression that a regulatory, immigration or other statutory investment threshold has been met when the client’s own qualifying capital is materially lower.
• Firms should consider testing the end-to-end governance of immigration-linked investment business, including approval of the business model, ownership and control disclosures, conflicts management, introducer due diligence, fee flows and oversight of connected or offshore entities.
• Firms may wish to reassess source-of-funds and source-of-wealth controls where client investments are supported by loans, circular funding, guarantees or funds provided by affiliated entities, and document why the resulting structure is consistent with the relevant immigration and financial-services requirements.
• Senior managers and boards should consider whether regulatory submissions, notifications and attestations fully disclose shadow directorships, controllers, beneficial ownership, related-party involvement and the true commercial purpose of client arrangements.
• Firms should consider conducting targeted reviews of historical investor-visa or residence-by-investment clients, including communications and files supplied to regulators or other public authorities, and escalating any potentially misleading statement or omission through the appropriate remediation and notification processes.
• Training and surveillance may be reviewed to ensure staff understand that conduct outside the core regulated service, including assistance with immigration-rule circumvention, can affect the firm’s and individuals’ integrity, fitness and propriety.
• Where third-party immigration agents or introducers are used, firms may wish to assess their incentives, remuneration, representations to clients, due-diligence records and ongoing monitoring, particularly where fees are unusually high or linked to visa approval.

What changed

This is a final enforcement outcome for Nagy and Maraj, not a new generally applicable rule or supervisory requirement. Both were prohibited from performing any function in relation to regulated activities; Nagy’s discounted penalty was £324,800, compared with an undiscounted £464,000, and Maraj’s discounted penalty was £122,000, compared with an undiscounted £174,300. Joukovski was issued a Decision Notice proposing a prohibition order, but the proposed action has no effect pending the Upper Tribunal’s determination.

Key dates

2021-09-01

ASIC's investigation into Edwards and associated entities commenced; the publication gives only September 2021 and does not specify a day.

2022-12-13

ASIC executed search warrants at Edwards's business premises and seized materials.

2025-01-22

The remaining court proceeding brought by Edwards that had delayed ASIC's review of seized materials was dismissed by consent.

2025-09-12

ASIC banned Edwards for 10 years under sections 920A and 920B of the Corporations Act 2001 from providing financial services, controlling an entity carrying on a financial services business, or performing functions involved in such a business.

2026-03-25

ASIC commenced NSW Supreme Court winding-up proceedings against the 12 companies and sought appointment of provisional liquidators.

2026-05-28

ASIC's disqualification of Edwards as a self-managed superannuation fund auditor took effect.

2026-08-19

ASIC's interlocutory application for appointment of provisional liquidators was heard before Justice Nixon.

2026-08-21

The NSW Supreme Court appointed Kathryn Evans and Vaughan Strawbridge of FTI Consulting as provisional liquidators of the 12 companies.

Suggested considerations

• Firms with exposure to the 12 companies should consider reviewing receivables, investments, security interests, guarantees, trust relationships and outstanding transactions, and preserving relevant records for engagement with the provisional liquidators.
• Investor-facing firms should consider identifying clients or funds exposed to the companies, suspending any further investor subscriptions or transfers involving the affected entities where legally and operationally appropriate, and assessing communications and complaint-handling requirements.
• Financial services licensees and professional firms that dealt with Edwards or the companies should consider checking the scope of their engagements, referral arrangements, client-money or custody controls, representations made to investors, and potential conflicts or undisclosed related-party transactions.
• Compliance teams may wish to verify that no person acting for the affected companies is relying on Edwards to provide financial services, control a financial services business or perform a function involved in carrying on such a business, given the 10-year prohibition under sections 920A and 920B of the Corporations Act 2001.
• Relevant firms should consider monitoring the NSW Supreme Court proceeding and the provisional liquidators' creditor and investor information portal ahead of the 2 November 2026 directions hearing.
• Persons holding potentially relevant information may wish to consider providing it to ASIC at [email protected] and preserving documents relevant to the ongoing investigation.

What changed

The directors of the 12 companies no longer control their affairs to the extent provided by the Court's orders; the provisional liquidators are responsible for investigating and reporting on the companies' assets, liabilities, asset recoverability, solvency, likely creditor returns, suspected contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 or ASIC Act 2001, and transactions requiring further investigation.

Key dates

2026-08-21

Proposal published in the Federal Register for public comment.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Written comments are due 45 days after Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess each pool’s investor eligibility against the natural-person and non-natural-person requirements in proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), including the distinctions between qualified eligible persons and accredited investors.
• RIAs should review offering documents, subscription procedures, investor representations, and transfer controls to support the required reasonable belief at investment or conversion that all participants satisfy the applicable eligibility criteria.
• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that each relevant pool’s interests qualify for a Securities Act exemption and that U.S. marketing practices comply with the proposed restriction, including the Rule 506(c) exception.
• Eligible advisers should map Form PF obligations and determine whether existing SEC filings would satisfy the proposed condition that Form PF be filed where required.
• Firms should prepare to file or update electronic exemption notices with the NFA and maintain the proposed Regulation 4.13 annual affirmation, recordkeeping, disclosure, and statutory-disqualification representations.
• Managers operating both registered and exempt pools should assess the proposed Regulation 4.13(e)(2) communications and redemption-right requirements and identify whether any existing participants would require notice before a pool is operated as exempt.
• Small-pool operators should model eligibility using the proposed $800,000 aggregate threshold while continuing to monitor the 15-participant-per-pool limit and unchanged contribution exclusions.
• Managers relying on Staff Letter 25-50 should preserve evidence of current compliance and evaluate transition implications because the CFTC preliminarily proposes to supersede that relief if the rule is finalized.

What changed

Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would exempt an SEC-registered investment adviser from CPO registration for qualifying pools if the pool interests are exempt from Securities Act registration and are not publicly marketed in the United States, except that the marketing restriction would not apply to pools offered under SEC Rule 506(c) of Regulation D.

Key dates

2026-08-19

MAS published the announcement of the proposed tax exemption, Hedge Fund Investment Programme and Investment Management Track.

2027-01-01

The proposed tax exemption is expected to apply from Year of Assessment 2027; the precise income-period mechanics and legislative commencement remain to be confirmed.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should inventory existing carried-interest, performance-fee, incentive-allocation and other profit-participation arrangements and identify whether returns are received directly or indirectly for fund-management services.
• Tax and legal teams may wish to map each relevant fund against Sections 13D, 13O, 13OA, 13U and 13V of the Income Tax Act 1947 and retain evidence of Singapore-based management and applicable economic-substance conditions.
• Firms should avoid treating the announcement as an immediately available exemption and should monitor Budget 2027 and subsequent legislation or administrative guidance for the effective scope, rate, thresholds, attribution rules and documentation requirements.
• Compliance teams may wish to review fund, management-company, partnership and individual remuneration agreements so that the commercial basis for any profit-related return is clearly documented and distinguishable from ordinary salary or bonus remuneration.
• Asset managers considering Singapore expansion should assess whether participation in the Hedge Fund Investment Programme or the proposed Investment Management Track could support their business and talent strategy, while awaiting eligibility and application details.
• Immigration and HR teams may wish to identify senior investment professionals whose compensation is materially linked to investment performance and assess the potential implications once revised ONE Pass criteria are published.
• Firms should continue applying existing tax, licensing, employment, payroll, conduct, books-and-records and anti-avoidance requirements; this announcement does not displace those obligations.

What changed

MAS and the Ministry of Finance plan to introduce a tax exemption from Year of Assessment 2027 for qualifying profit-related returns arising from fund-management services. The exemption is intended to cover a contractual share of profits of funds qualifying under Sections 13D, 13O, 13OA, 13U or 13V of the Income Tax Act 1947, where the funds are managed by Singapore-based fund managers and the returns are received directly or indirectly by corporate entities, partnerships or individuals for providing fund-management services.

Key dates

2026-08-18

CFTC announced publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning amendments to Part 4 CPO and CTA registration requirements.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to obtain and review the full Federal Register proposal, including the precise sophisticated-investor criteria, pool-level conditions, adviser eligibility requirements, proposed small-pool capital threshold, effective date, and transition provisions.
• Firms should consider mapping each existing and prospective pool against the proposed CPO exemption conditions and each advisory mandate against the proposed CTA exemption conditions, without treating the proposal as currently available relief.
• SEC-registered advisers may wish to compare the proposed exemption with their current CFTC registration status, CFTC Regulation 4.13 or 4.14 filings, Rule 4.7 reliance, and any applicable CFTC staff no-action relief.
• Small-pool operators should consider recalculating eligibility using the proposed inflation-adjusted capital-contribution threshold once the precise amount is published and assessing whether existing offering, subscription, and compliance controls would continue to demonstrate compliance.
• Affected firms may wish to assess whether to submit comments within 45 days after Federal Register publication, particularly on investor definitions, treatment of derivatives and swaps, aggregation rules, recordkeeping, reporting, and coordination with SEC adviser requirements.
• Firms relying on existing exemptions or no-action letters should continue meeting their current conditions and filing obligations unless and until a final rule or separate relief changes them.
• Legal and regulatory inventories may be updated to cross-reference CFTC Regulations 4.5, 4.7, 4.13, and 4.14, the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

What changed

The CFTC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to Part 4. The proposal would add a CPO registration exemption for certain investment advisers registered with the SEC in connection with commodity pools whose participants are limited to specified sophisticated investors and that satisfy additional conditions set out in the proposal. It would add a related CTA registration exemption. It would also increase the capital-contribution threshold applicable to the existing small commodity pool exemption under CFTC Regulation 4.13 to account for inflation.

Key dates

2014-01-01

Start of relevant conduct period during which Investacorp Advisory Services, Inc. recommended or retained mutual fund share classes with 12b-1 fees despite lower-cost alternatives being available

2018-03-30

End of relevant conduct period covered by the SEC administrative order against Investacorp Advisory Services, Inc.

2026-08-12

SEC issues administrative order in Release No. 34-106089, File No. 3-19037, imposing cease-and-desist relief, censure, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest on Investacorp Advisory Services, Inc.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing mutual fund share-class selection policies and procedures to confirm that, where clients are eligible, the lowest-cost available share class of a given fund is systematically considered and documented, particularly in accounts where the firm or an affiliate receives 12b-1 fees.
• Compliance teams may wish to evaluate Form ADV Part 2A, advisory brochures, and other client disclosures to determine whether receipt of 12b-1 fees and similar distribution or servicing compensation is clearly described as a material conflict of interest, including the incentives it creates for advisers and affiliated broker-dealers.
• Advisory firms with affiliated broker-dealers should consider mapping compensation flows, including 12b-1 fees and revenue sharing, between entities to identify where those arrangements could reasonably influence share-class recommendations, and whether enhanced disclosure or conflict-mitigation controls are warranted.
• Firms may wish to implement or refine surveillance and testing to identify accounts invested in higher-cost mutual fund share classes when a lower-cost share class of the same fund appears available to that client, and to assess whether any such positions reflect policy exceptions or potential remediation candidates.
• Investment committees and disclosure governance bodies should consider comparing actual fund-share-class usage patterns against stated policies and disclosures in advisory brochures, wrap-fee program documents, and client agreements to confirm alignment and identify gaps in describing conflicts tied to 12b-1 fee receipt.
• Firms that historically received 12b-1 fees or similar fund distribution compensation during periods comparable to 2014–2018 may wish to consider whether a retroactive review of share-class selection and client eligibility is appropriate and whether any client reimbursement, remediation, or supplemental disclosure exercises are advisable in light of the SEC’s enforcement posture.
• Compliance and supervisory functions should consider updating training for investment adviser representatives and registered representatives to ensure they understand how mutual fund share-class selection, 12b-1 fee arrangements, and affiliated broker-dealer compensation can create fiduciary and disclosure risk under the Advisers Act.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to revisit enterprise-level conflicts of interest inventories to ensure that mutual fund share-class selection practices, 12b-1 fee arrangements, and related revenue-sharing structures are explicitly captured, assessed, and tied to appropriate controls and disclosures.

What changed

The publication does not introduce new rules or amend existing regulations; it is an enforcement settlement applying existing fiduciary and disclosure obligations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, including Sections 203(e) and 203(k). The order confirms that the SEC considers the practice of placing advisory clients into mutual fund share classes that charge 12b-1 fees when lower-cost, non-12b-1 share classes of the same fund are available to be a material conflict of interest when the adviser or an affiliated broker-dealer receives those fees.

Key dates

2026-08-04

Federal Reserve published the proposed rule in the Federal Register at 91 FR 49526.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule are due.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the proposal’s threshold changes against existing Regulation O controls, including board-approval triggers, disclosure triggers, and internal lending limit checks.
• Firms may wish to identify any lending relationships that rely on current presumptions of control, especially where portfolio companies of investment fund complexes could be affected.
• Banks may wish to review insider-lending policies, forms, recordkeeping, and disclosure workflows for provisions that the proposal would codify, clarify, or remove.
• Stakeholders may wish to submit comments by 2026-10-05 if they want to influence the final treatment of thresholds, fund-complex ownership, valuation rules, or correspondent-lending provisions.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to compare the proposed text against existing Regulation O, Regulation Y, and internal interpretive guidance to spot implementation impacts if the rule is finalized largely as proposed.

What changed

The proposal would amend 12 CFR part 215 (Regulation O) and conform related provisions in Regulation Y and other Board regulations. It would make a one-time adjustment to several dollar-based thresholds, then index those thresholds going forward based on nominal GDP. It would clarify how certain limits apply on an aggregate basis and streamline limits on loans to executive officers, including prior board-approval requirements for certain large loans.

Key dates

January 2021

- Start of the period during which Financière Fonds Privés is found to have committed unauthorised placement and advisory breaches

October 2024

- End of the factual period examined by the AMF Enforcement Committee for the identified breaches

TBD (post‑21 July 2026)

- Potential appeal phase before the Conseil d’État; the decision indicates that an appeal may be lodged, so firms should monitor for any subsequent case law impacting interpretation of CIF professional obligations

21 July 2026

- AMF Enforcement Committee decision imposing fines of €100,000 on Financière Fonds Privés, €70,000 on Pierre‑Michel Deléglise, and €40,000 on Thierry de Chambure, and attributing all breaches to the two senior managers

28 July 2026

- Public announcement of the decision via AMF news release

Suggested considerations

• Review the firm’s regulatory status (CIF versus investment services provider) and ensure that any placement or capital‑raising activities are within authorised limits; discontinue or re‑authorise any non‑guaranteed placement services currently carried out under CIF status.
• Conduct a comprehensive mapping of all services and activities (advisory, marketing, introductions, distribution) to confirm that none constitute regulated investment services (e.g., non‑guaranteed placement) without the requisite AMF/ACPR authorisation.
• Inventory all remuneration flows from issuers and third parties, including commissions, retrocessions and fees, and assess whether they are compatible with any independence claims and MiFID II inducements rules; remove or re‑label “independent” branding where issuer remuneration is received.
• Update client‑facing documentation (engagement letters, brochures, websites, emails) to provide clear, accurate and non‑misleading information on adviser independence, remuneration model, and any relationships with issuers or introducers.
• Implement or enhance procedures to ensure a written suitability statement is produced and delivered to clients for each piece of investment advice, documenting client profile, recommended products and rationale; integrate this into advisory workflows and record‑keeping.

What changed

• - Financial investment advisors must not conduct non‑guaranteed placement services (service de placement non garanti) such as actively seeking subscribers on behalf of issuers, unless they hold the...
• Firms that present themselves as independent advisors must not receive remuneration (direct or indirect) from product issuers whose instruments they recommend, unless permitted under MiFID II/French...
• When claiming independence, firms must provide accurate, clear and non‑misleading information on the nature of their independence, remuneration model, and any relationships with issuers or...
• Financial investment advisors must issue a written suitability statement formalising the investment advice provided, setting out the client’s profile, the recommended products, and the reasons why...
• Pre‑contractual documentation must include full information on costs, fees and remuneration, covering both the advised investment and any business introducer partners; omission of these disclosures...

Key dates

05 March 2026

- CSSF imposes the administrative sanction on Stonehage Fleming Luxembourg S.A. (date of decision)

09 June 2026

- CSSF publicly announces the administrative sanction and the existence of a PDF decision (date of publication on CSSF website)

Suggested considerations

• Monitor the CSSF website for publication of the detailed PDF decision relating to the administrative sanction of 5 March 2026 against Stonehage Fleming Luxembourg S.A.
• Once available, review the full decision to identify the specific legal bases (e.g. LFS, Law of 2010, Law of 2013, AML/CFT Law) and control failures cited by the CSSF.
• Map the identified weaknesses from the decision against your firm’s governance, internal control, delegate oversight and AML/CFT frameworks to identify any similar risk areas.
• Update internal compliance risk assessments to reflect the enforcement themes highlighted in this and recent CSSF sanctions, including the weighting of enforcement risk for organisational and AML/CFT deficiencies.
• Review and, where necessary, strengthen board and senior management oversight arrangements, including the documentation of decisions, challenge and escalation processes, in anticipation of CSSF expectations evidenced in the forthcoming decision.

What changed

• At this stage, based on the CSSF notice alone, no new legal or regulatory requirements are introduced; the publication is a transparency notice that a sanction decision exists.
• the Law of 5 April 1993 on the financial sector (LFS), the Law of 17 December 2010 on undertakings for collective investment, the Law of 12 July 2013 on AIFMs, and the Law of 12 November 2004 on the...
• the CSSF’s established practice of publishing individual sanction decisions, which typically detail shortcomings in organisational requirements, internal controls, oversight of delegates, conduct of...
• the legal provisions breached (for example, Articles 109–111 and 148 of the Law of 2010 or Articles 2-2, 3 and 8-4 of the AML/CFT Law, by analogy with other CSSF sanctions),
• the factual deficiencies identified (e.g., weaknesses in governance, delegate oversight, AML risk assessment, customer due diligence), and