Wealth Managers Regulatory Updates

Key dates

2021-12-20

The AFM published its exploratory report on finfluencing, identifying unlicensed advice, risky recommendations, cooperation with unlicensed firms and customer-referral fees as key pitfalls.

2026-08-31

The Rotterdam District Court reduced the Van den Brink fine by €52,500 to €142,500, citing proportionality, delayed AFM action and breach of the reasonable-time requirement under Article 6 ECHR.

2026-11-05

The AFM published the enforcement update describing the original €195,000 fine and the court's final €142,500 outcome.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should consider inventorying all finfluencer, affiliate, introducer and referral arrangements, including website links, discount codes, lead forms and onboarding assistance.
• Firms should consider verifying the AFM authorisation status of every investment-service provider, platform or asset manager promoted by employees, affiliates or contracted influencers before publication or referral activity begins.
• Investment firms should consider testing whether any payment is calculated by reference to the number of referred customers, account openings, onboarding progress, deposits or invested assets, as these features create heightened Dutch inducement and conduct risk.
• Firms should consider separating permitted advertising services from customer-introduction or onboarding activities and documenting why each arrangement does not involve unauthorised investment advice, portfolio management or participation in unlicensed services.
• Marketing and compliance teams may wish to review influencer scripts, direct messages, Q&A responses and customer-support practices for advice, personalised recommendations or operational assistance that exceeds passive advertising.
• Firms should consider collecting and retaining contracts, commission calculations, communications, approval records and evidence of licence checks so that the commercial purpose and control framework for each promotion can be demonstrated.
• Governance committees may wish to treat unusually high or asset-based referral commissions, including percentages of customer deposits, as escalation indicators requiring enhanced legal and compliance review.
• Firms should consider reviewing legacy arrangements in light of the AFM's 2021 finfluencer findings and subsequent enforcement against referral-fee models, including arrangements involving execution-only services.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or general licensing amendment. The AFM treated Van den Brink's combined activities—promotion through social media and a website, investor introduction, assistance with registration, responses to investor questions and acting as a contact person—as participation in illegal asset management, not merely advertising. The AFM stated that Grinta Invest had no required licence and that Van den Brink received substantial referral remuneration, including 10% of investors' deposited capital; the remuneration was relevant to the original fine.

Key dates

2026-11-02

WBF amended Annex 2 of the Ordinance of 25 May 2005 on Measures against Sudan (SR 946.231.18), modifying three individual entries.

2026-11-03 Deadline

The amended Sudan sanctions measures enter into force at 23:00 Swiss time; affected financial intermediaries must apply the relevant prohibitions, freeze assets and report affected relationships and blocked assets as required by the ordinance.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should consider updating sanctions-screening data, including aliases and identifying information, from SESAM and the amended Annex 2 before the 23:00 effective time on 3 November 2026.
• Firms should consider screening customers, beneficial owners, counterparties, payment beneficiaries, securities positions and existing business relationships against all three modified entries, including historical and transliterated names where relevant.
• Where a potential match is identified, firms should consider applying the Article 2 financial-sanctions restrictions, preventing further availability of assets or economic resources, preserving relevant records and escalating the case for false-positive resolution and sanctions governance review.
• Firms should consider notifying SECO of affected business relationships and blocked assets in accordance with SR 946.231.18 and maintaining evidence of the decision, controls applied and notification submitted.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether a sanctions hit or related transaction creates additional money-laundering concerns requiring enhanced inquiries under Article 6 GwG and, if suspicions cannot be dispelled, an immediate Article 9 GwG report to the Money Laundering Reporting Office.
• Firms with cross-border operations should consider separately assessing whether the modified persons are also subject to EU, UK, US or other sanctions regimes, because the Swiss listing and any foreign restrictions may differ in scope and ownership or control consequences.
• Firms should consider validating batch-screening, real-time payment-screening, case-management and alert-escalation controls after the SESAM update, given the short notice between publication and effectiveness.

What changed

Three individual entries in Annex 2 were modified; the update is implemented through the Swiss SESAM sanctions database. The amended listings are subject to the financial sanctions in Article 2 paragraph 1 of SR 946.231.18, including the freezing of assets and economic resources and the prohibition on directly or indirectly making assets or economic resources available to listed persons. The relevant travel-ban provisions under Article 4 paragraph 1 also apply. Financial intermediaries must report affected business relationships and blocked assets to SECO.

Key dates

2019-08-01

Start of the period in which ASIC alleges more than $600 million was invested in First Guardian and the alleged failures occurred.

2024-05-01

Falcon Capital froze or suspended redemptions from First Guardian, subject to limited exceptions.

2025-02-24

The Federal Court made interim orders freezing the assets of Falcon Capital, First Guardian and David Anderson.

2025-04-09

The Federal Court ordered Falcon Capital and First Guardian to be wound up and appointed liquidators and a receiver in related orders.

2026-10-30

ASIC announced commencement of civil penalty proceedings against David Anderson and Simon Selimaj and its application for leave to proceed against Falcon Capital in liquidation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all related-party, connected-party and director-linked investments across managed investment schemes, including indirect exposures through controlled underlying funds.
• Firms should consider testing whether each private-credit, property and private-equity investment has current executed documentation, enforceable security, independent valuation support, documented approval, appropriate concentration analysis and evidence of ongoing monitoring.
• Responsible entities and trustees may wish to reassess whether investment committees exercise meaningful independent oversight, particularly where a chief executive, director or investment officer can originate, approve or vary investments without effective challenge.
• Firms should consider refreshing conflicts registers and reviewing whether conflicts were identified, disclosed, avoided or managed before investor funds were committed, including conflicts involving hospitality, alcohol-related businesses, technology ventures, property developments and payments to entities controlled by officers or associates.
• Product issuers may wish to review product disclosure statements and other investor communications for unsupported claims about robustness, diversification, security, liquidity, risk controls or investment processes, and assess whether any corrective disclosure or remediation is required.
• Platform operators, trustees and advice licensees may wish to review onboarding and due-diligence files for complex private-market products, including verification of valuations, underlying-fund registration status, custody arrangements, liquidity assumptions and the identity of related parties.
• Advice licensees may wish to test whether recommendations to transfer superannuation or establish an SMSF and invest in high-risk managed schemes were supported by documented best-interests analysis, appropriate disclosure and suitability assessments.
• Senior managers and boards may wish to preserve records demonstrating challenge, escalation, monitoring and follow-up of exceptions, red flags, valuation concerns, redemption restrictions and unusual related-party payments.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or generally applicable legislative amendment. ASIC alleges that Falcon Capital, as responsible entity of the First Guardian Master Fund, failed to maintain effective investment governance, due diligence, documentation, security, conflict management and oversight; misled investors through product disclosure statements describing robust investment processes; and allowed at least $57 million to be paid to entities controlled by Anderson or Selimaj.

Key dates

2026-10-29

The SEC announced charges against BG Wealth Sharing Ltd and DSJ Exchange Pty Ltd and filed the related enforcement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review third-party crypto platforms, advisers, issuers, introducers, and promoters for unsupported claims that an SEC filing represents licensing, approval, endorsement, or authorization.
• Firms should consider independently verifying Form ADV, Form D, and other regulatory filings through official regulator databases and documenting the precise legal effect of each filing before relying on it in due diligence or investor communications.
• Marketing and financial-promotion controls may wish to test for claims of risk-free or guaranteed returns, extraordinary monthly performance, government approval, SEC registration, fake certificates, and statements that a Rule 506(c) filing authorizes operation of a crypto exchange.
• Firms with exposure to BG Wealth Sharing, DSJ Exchange, or associated promoters should consider escalating the relationship for legal, fraud, sanctions, counterparty, and suspicious-activity review and preserving relevant communications, transaction records, and onboarding materials.
• Investment advisers and other regulated firms may wish to assess whether referral, custody, payment, or platform relationships involving similar schemes create customer-protection, books-and-records, disclosure, or reputational risks.
• Compliance teams may wish to incorporate the related state and foreign warnings into typology monitoring, particularly indicators such as recruitment-based compensation, blocked withdrawals, advance exit or compliance fees, fake account balances, and periodic payments used to sustain investor confidence.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new rule or generally applicable compliance requirement. The SEC alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by both entities, and violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by BG Wealth. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties against both entities, and conduct-based injunctions against BG Wealth.

Key dates

2026-10-26

ASIC announced and made the interim stop order against the Murdoch Clarke Mortgage Fund PDS.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider suspending affected offers, issuances, sales, transfers and distribution activity and checking all intermediary and platform instructions against the terms of the interim order.
• Compliance teams may wish to conduct a line-by-line PDS review against Corporations Act 2001 sections 1013C, 1013D and 1013F, including whether all material information, fees and costs, risks and withdrawal terms are disclosed clearly, concisely and effectively.
• Fund managers should consider identifying and describing all actual, potential and permitted related-party transactions, including the parties involved, nature of the arrangements, decision-making controls, remuneration and associated conflicts.
• Compliance teams may wish to reconcile every fee, cost, spread, margin, related-party charge and indirect cost in the PDS with constitutions, investment management agreements, responsible-entity arrangements, financial statements and actual operating practice.
• Managers should consider presenting lending, property-security, interest-only, principal-repayment, valuation, concentration, liquidity, default, impairment and loss risks in a prominent and investor-comprehensible manner rather than relying on generic risk wording.
• Firms should consider prominently distinguishing the Fund's usual withdrawal processing practice from the responsible entity's legal discretion and maximum permitted timeframe, including any suspension, gate, queue, notice, liquidity or repayment conditions.
• Distributors and advisers may wish to review current product lists, advice templates, research ratings and retail communications to ensure they do not continue promoting or recommending the Fund while the order is in force.
• Private credit managers should consider reviewing comparable PDSs and target market determinations proactively, given ASIC's stated surveillance focus and the recent pattern of interim intervention followed by required disclosure remediation.

What changed

The interim order immediately halts the relevant fundraising and secondary dealing activities under the Fund's PDS; it is not a new generally applicable rule or a final finding of contravention. ASIC identified concerns that the PDS fails to disclose related-party transactions, inadequately explains fees and costs, provides insufficient or unclear risk information, and does not adequately and prominently explain withdrawals. ASIC may make a final stop order if the concerns are not addressed in a timely manner, after Murdoch Clarke has an opportunity to make submissions.

Key dates

2026-10-23

The FCA published the multi-firm review findings and associated supervisory expectations.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider performing a documented gap assessment against the review findings, including whether their conflict framework reflects the substance of UK activities rather than only formal delegation or legal arrangements.
• Compliance teams may wish to refresh business-model and transaction-level conflict inventories to cover multiple funds, vintages, continuation and evergreen vehicles, affiliated businesses, shared services, capital-structure conflicts, remuneration, valuation, financing, redemptions, asset transfers and exit decisions.
• Firms should consider testing whether conflict identification occurs repeatedly from origination through valuation, allocation, monitoring, restructuring and exit, rather than only at onboarding or transaction approval.
• Firms may wish to define and evidence materiality thresholds, escalation triggers, accountable decision-makers and governance forums for complex or material conflicts, including when engagement with LPs or LP advisory committees is appropriate.
• For cross-fund transfers and continuation transactions, firms should consider independent challenge, valuation oversight, analysis of competing investor interests, documented alternatives and evidence supporting the fairness of the outcome; investor consent or disclosure alone may not demonstrate adequate management.
• Firms should consider reviewing gifts and entertainment controls beyond monetary thresholds, including purpose, recipient, frequency, patterns, inducement risk, approvals, record keeping and compliance monitoring.
• Firms may wish to assess whether information barriers use physical, organisational and system controls, with monitoring and oversight of information sharing, rather than relying primarily on staff judgement and training.
• Senior management and control functions should consider whether second-line compliance has sufficient independence and authority, and whether periodic internal-audit or other third-line reviews provide effective assurance and challenge.

What changed

This is supervisory guidance and a statement of FCA expectations, not a new rule or formal implementation deadline. The FCA expects firms to identify, assess, record, manage, mitigate and disclose actual, potential and perceived conflicts across the full investment lifecycle, based on the substance, scale and complexity of their UK activities rather than their formal legal structure.

Key dates

2019-01-01

In 2019, Dawkins sold Vector Wealth to a director who had previously been disqualified and who subsequently described himself as the firm's CEO; the FCA found that Dawkins falsely represented that he remained in control.

2020-09-22

Kadir Kanizi was appointed as a director of Vector Wealth.

2021-01-01

The FCA's permanent restriction on marketing speculative illiquid securities, including relevant mini-bonds and loan notes, to retail investors took effect, subject to applicable high-net-worth and sophisticated-investor exemptions.

2021-09-06

The FCA approved Kadir Kanizi for his senior management role at Vector Wealth.

2025-01-28

Vector Wealth's FCA authorisation ended.

2026-10-21

The FCA published the enforcement announcement concerning Dawkins and Kanizi.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review ownership, control and governance records following any acquisition or disposal, verify that the person exercising actual control is accurately disclosed to the FCA and assess whether a change-in-control notification under FSMA sections 178 to 191 was required.
• Firms should consider testing that directors, controllers and senior managers meet the applicable fit-and-proper standards and that no disqualified person is exercising management or operational control indirectly or through nominee arrangements.
• Firms that issue, approve or distribute mini-bond, loan-note or similar promotions should consider a product-level assessment of whether the instrument is a speculative illiquid security and whether the promotion is prohibited or qualifies for a valid exemption under the FCA rules.
• Financial promotion approval processes should be reviewed to ensure that risk warnings are prominent, balanced and comprehensible, and are not undermined by claims suggesting fixed returns, simplicity, safety or FCA endorsement.
• Where high-net-worth or sophisticated-investor exemptions are used, firms should consider verifying the relevant declaration and process before providing access to the promotion, rather than treating a generic self-certification as evidence that all conduct and disclosure obligations have been satisfied.
• Firms should consider documenting who reviewed the promotion, the evidence supporting the target market and exemption, the underlying use of investor funds, liquidity and default risks, and the rationale for approving the communication.
• Boards and senior managers may wish to review escalation, oversight and record-keeping arrangements for unregulated investment activity conducted alongside regulated business, particularly where the firm's FCA authorisation could give investors a misleading impression of product safety or compensation protection.
• Firms should consider confirming that senior managers understand their individual accountability for consumer communications and risk oversight, and may wish to include high-risk investment promotions in conduct monitoring and Consumer Duty assessments where relevant.

What changed

This is a final enforcement action rather than a new rule or industry-wide implementation deadline. It applies the existing prohibition in section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on unauthorised financial promotions, the FCA's financial promotion rules in COBS 4, including the restrictions applying to speculative illiquid securities, and the change-in-control notification regime under sections 178 to 191 of FSMA.

Key dates

2021-05-01

Shield Master Fund commenced operation; ASIC found that some SOAs nevertheless suggested Shield had generated returns or outperformed alternatives since 2016.

2023-09-18

Singh became authorised by MWL Financial Services.

2024-02-01

ASIC halted new offers of Shield investments through interim stop orders on four product disclosure statements.

2024-06-01

ASIC took action to secure assets held within Shield for the potential benefit of investors.

2024-12-23

Singh ceased being authorised by MWL.

2025-01-13

Singh became an authorised representative of Interprac Financial Planning.

2025-08-25

ASIC cancelled MWL’s Australian financial services licence and banned MWL director Nicholas Maikousis.

2025-11-21

Cor Cordis liquidators were appointed to MWL.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review advice files involving rollovers or switches of superannuation into high-risk, illiquid or newly established products, including whether the advice demonstrated the client’s objectives, financial situation, needs, risk tolerance, diversification and capacity to bear loss.
• Firms should consider testing Statements of Advice for unsupported historical-performance claims, back-cast comparisons, projections, graphs and descriptions that could imply a product existed or achieved returns before its actual commencement date.
• Licensees may wish to reassess approved-product-list governance, including independent product due diligence, evidence of product track record, liquidity and valuation risk, investment-class risk ratings, concentration limits and escalation where a product is proposed for a substantial proportion of retirement savings.
• Compliance teams should consider targeted surveillance of advice involving large superannuation rollovers, replacement products, high-growth allocations and advisers or referral channels associated with MWL, Shield or similar schemes.
• Firms should review conflicts and remuneration controls, including referral arrangements, lead-generator relationships, bonuses, volume incentives and disclosures in Financial Services Guides and Statements of Advice.
• Licensees may wish to verify adviser status on ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Register and ensure that a banned person cannot provide financial services, control a financial services business or perform functions involved in carrying on such a business during the prohibition period.
• Affected consumers and firms handling complaints should consider preserving advice records, product research, call recordings, referral documentation and transaction evidence, and directing eligible consumer complaints to AFCA while recognising that MWL remains an AFCA member.
• Superannuation trustees and product issuers may wish to assess whether comparable products, distribution models or adviser incentives create risks of misleading disclosure, unsuitable concentration or advice that is not in members’ best interests.

What changed

This is a final administrative banning decision against an individual rather than a new generally applicable rule. Singh is prohibited from providing financial services for four years and the banning order has been recorded on ASIC’s Banned and Disqualified Register. ASIC found conduct inconsistent with the best-interests duty, the appropriateness obligation and prohibitions on false or materially misleading representations: approximately 75% of certain clients’ rolled-over superannuation was recommended for investment in Shield’s Growth or High Growth Class despite the product being high...

Key dates

2025-12-08

FCA opened DP25/3, Expanding consumer access to investments.

2026-03-06

FCA closed the DP25/3 feedback period.

2026-10-16

FCA published FS26/3, summarising feedback and setting out next steps.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the FCA's planned review of financial-promotion rules for high-risk investments and assess whether current product classifications and promotional controls would remain defensible if similar-risk products are brought into a more consistent regime.
• Firms may wish to inventory customer-facing risk information for mainstream investments and identify disclosures, digital journeys and governance processes that could require revision following the FCA's planned early-2027 consultation.
• Platform operators and distributors may wish to review appropriateness-testing journeys, including customer understanding, repeat transactions, exemptions, escalation and recordkeeping, in anticipation of FCA stakeholder engagement during 2027.
• Manufacturers and distributors of model portfolio services may wish to test product governance, target-market definitions, distribution strategy, cost and risk disclosures, and evidence of good consumer outcomes before the FCA publishes its multi-firm review findings in Q1 2027.
• Firms may wish to review whether digital interfaces, trading-app functionality, gamification features and other friction-reducing design choices support informed decision-making and remain consistent with Consumer Duty outcomes.
• Industry participants may wish to engage with the FCA's future consultations and stakeholder work, while avoiding treating FS26/3 as permission to relax existing financial-promotion, suitability, appropriateness or consumer-protection controls.

What changed

FS26/3 does not introduce new requirements, thresholds or effective dates for firms. The FCA will review whether financial-promotion rules for high-risk investments treat products with similar risks consistently; it plans to consult in early 2027 on changes to rules and guidance concerning risk information for mainstream investments; and it will review how appropriateness assessments operate in practice, including the merits of alternative models, with stakeholder engagement planned for 2027.

Key dates

2021-04-20

Start of the relevant period during which Fortnum admitted the cybersecurity governance failures occurred.

2022-01-01

Independent industry reporting identified a 2022 cyber incident at a Fortnum authorised representative involving data relating to up to 9,828 clients; the ASIC publication does not specify the incident date.

2023-05-11

End of the relevant period covered by Fortnum’s admissions.

2025-07-22

ASIC commenced Supreme Court of NSW proceedings against Fortnum concerning alleged failures to manage and mitigate cybersecurity risks.

2026-10-12

The Supreme Court of NSW approved the agreed $1.35 million pecuniary penalty and ordered Fortnum to pay $250,000 toward ASIC’s costs.

2026-10-14

ASIC published the enforcement outcome and stated that this was its third cyber-resilience enforcement action against an AFSL holder, following RI Advice and FIIG Securities.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map cybersecurity governance to the licensee’s obligations under section 912A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), including documented ownership, escalation and board or senior-management oversight.
• Firms should consider assessing whether their cybersecurity policy applies consistently to authorised representatives, outsourced providers and other connected practices, with minimum controls, implementation evidence and exception-management processes.
• Licensees may wish to establish a documented assurance programme covering representative due diligence, cyber training, control testing, incident reporting, vulnerability management and periodic reviews of representative cyber resilience.
• Firms should consider whether they have access to suitably qualified cybersecurity expertise, either internally or through appropriately scoped external specialists, and retain evidence that advice informs the risk-management framework.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether their risk-management system identifies and evaluates cyber risks across the entire advice network and whether monitoring results are reported to accountable senior personnel.
• Following a cyber incident or material control deficiency, firms should consider prompt escalation, preservation of evidence, assessment of notification obligations and constructive engagement with ASIC; Fortnum’s self-reporting and cooperation were identified as relevant factors in the agreed penalty.
• Firms should consider validating that cyber controls protect highly sensitive personal information, including identity documents, tax file numbers and financial-account details, and that remediation is independently verified rather than limited to policy updates.

What changed

No new rule or prospective compliance deadline was introduced. The enforcement outcome establishes a further ASIC precedent that an AFSL holder’s obligation to provide financial services efficiently, honestly and fairly and to maintain adequate risk-management systems extends to cybersecurity controls, specialist expertise and oversight of authorised representatives.

Key dates

2026-10-14

AFM publiceert de actualisering van het boetetoemetingsbeleid.

2026-10-15

Het Boetetoemetingsbeleid AFM 2026 treedt in werking en vervangt in beginsel het beleid van 2021, behoudens toepasselijke overgangsregimes.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map each relevante overtreding tegen het toepasselijke wettelijke basisbedrag, de boetecategorie en het wettelijke omzetgerelateerde maximum onder de Wft, het Bbbfs en toepasselijke EU-regels.
• Grotere ondernemingen may wish to model exposure using three- to ten-times the applicable basisbedrag for potential zware zaken, followed by a documented proportionality assessment and review against the relevant percentage-of-turnover ceiling.
• Firms should consider strengthening evidence on remediation, cooperation, duration, limited impact, absence of recidive, financial position and any other mitigating circumstances, because the updated policy gives the AFM greater scope to move materially away from the basisbedrag.
• Boards and senior compliance owners may wish to review open investigations, pending enforcement matters and historic breaches to assess whether the 2026 policy or an applicable transitional regime is relevant.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to verify the final AFM 2026 policy and its transitional provisions, particularly where the alleged conduct occurred before 15 October 2026 or where the applicable legal maximum has recently changed.
• Firms may wish to update enforcement-risk scenarios, management information and provisions to reflect that a lower basisbedrag is not necessarily a reliable proxy for the final penalty in a serious case.

What changed

Het beleid blijft gebaseerd op het bestaande stappenplan, maar verduidelijkt dat het wettelijke basisbedrag slechts een globaal uitgangspunt is. De ernst van de overtreding kan aanleiding geven tot een aanzienlijke verhoging of verlaging, waardoor de AFM meer ruimte krijgt voor vergaand maatwerk in lijn met recente jurisprudentie.

Key dates

2026-10-13

The FCA and NCA arrested three suspects, searched five residential premises in London and Manchester, and seized more than 30 mobile phones, laptops and tablets in an ongoing investigation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether market-abuse surveillance covers relevant instruments, trading venues, employee dealing, client orders, communications and potential information-sharing networks, with risk-based scenarios for insider dealing and manipulation.
• Firms should consider testing escalation procedures for suspected inside information, including preservation of communications and devices, prompt investigation, documented decision-making and submission of suspicious transaction and order reports where required.
• Firms subject to UK anti-money-laundering requirements may wish to assess whether insider-dealing alerts are linked to customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, suspicious activity reporting and source-of-funds or source-of-wealth reviews.
• Senior management and control functions may wish to confirm that restricted lists, wall-crossing procedures, information barriers, personal-account dealing controls, conflicts controls and staff training remain appropriate for organised or externally coordinated threats.
• Firms may wish to ensure that surveillance records, alert rationales, investigation files and relevant electronic communications can be retrieved promptly if the FCA requests information or conducts an enforcement investigation.
• Relevant firms should consider reminding employees and connected persons that disclosing or using inside information, recommending transactions, or encouraging others to trade can create criminal and regulatory exposure; any communication should avoid implying that the arrested individuals have been charged or found guilty.

What changed

No new obligation, rule, threshold or compliance deadline was introduced. The publication announces an ongoing criminal investigation involving arrests, searches and evidence seizures, and confirms that the FCA is using its market-abuse and financial-crime enforcement powers jointly with the NCA. The FCA reported four insider-dealing convictions in 2025/26, including two cases producing combined prison sentences of 11 years, and fines totalling £1.77 million imposed on 12 people for insider dealing, market manipulation and misleading statements.

Key dates

2026-10-13

Instruction DOC-2026-05 was published; it applies to the specified OPCIs and evergreen FCPRs, and the two-year transition period begins for funds established before this date.

2028-10-13 Deadline

End of the two-year transition period for OPCIs and evergreen FCPRs established before 2026-10-13. Management companies should have notified the AMF of compliance through ROSA and filed the prospectus or rules and required stress tests by this date.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify every OPCI and evergreen FCPR in scope and map its redemption frequency, notice period, current liquid-asset holdings and applicable minimum cushion under Instruction DOC-2026-05.
• Management companies should calculate whether each fund satisfies the applicable permanent cushion and assess whether the potentially reduced regime for funds marketed exclusively through eligible insurance or savings products is available and properly evidenced.
• Compliance teams may wish to update prospectuses, evergreen FCPR rules and related investor disclosures to state the minimum liquid-asset cushion using the applicable Annex VII format.
• Firms should produce or refresh liquidity stress tests using all scenarios specified in DOC-2026-05, including evidence that redemption requests can be met, and establish governance for periodic review and escalation of shortfalls.
• Management companies should review whether any proposed change to redemption frequency or notice period would alter the required cushion and, if so, plan for prior AMF approval, specific investor notification and the applicable fee-free redemption right.
• For funds existing on 2026-10-13, firms should plan the ROSA filing of the amended prospectus or rules and compliant stress tests before the end of the two-year transition period.
• Product, distribution and insurance teams should verify that marketing materials and product documentation do not imply liquidity inconsistent with the fund’s redemption terms, liquid-asset cushion or stress-test assumptions.
• Firms should monitor the forthcoming French transposition of Directive (EU) 2024/927 and assess whether subsequent statutory liquidity-management-tool requirements impose additional controls beyond DOC-2026-05.

What changed

The former authorisation approach, under which management companies generally demonstrated liquid assets equal to 30% to 40% of net assets and submitted stress tests, is replaced or formalised through a permanent liquidity cushion calibrated to the fund’s redemption frequency or redemption notice period. The AMF gives a monthly-redemption fund as an example requiring at least 25% of net assets in liquid assets.

Key dates

2026-10-13

ASIC announced the interim stop order against Fidante Partners Limited; the order is stated to remain in force for 21 days unless revoked earlier.

Suggested considerations

• Fidante and relevant distributors should consider immediately suppressing retail issuance, PDS delivery and covered general advice activities within the scope of the stop order, while confirming the order’s operative terms and any revocation or variation.
• Fund issuers should consider conducting a documented TMD review against the product’s actual risks, liquidity and redemption arrangements, including whether capital-preservation language is compatible with exposure to global syndicated loans, asset-backed securities, derivatives and subordinated or residual CLO tranches.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether stated risk classifications and portfolio-allocation limits are supported by the product’s loss profile, volatility, liquidity and concentration characteristics, with particular attention to any allowance for retail investors to allocate up to 50% of investable assets.
• Distributors should consider reviewing advice files, platform controls, marketing materials and distribution data to determine whether retail clients outside an appropriately defined target market may have received the product or recommendations concerning it.
• Issuers and distributors of comparable private credit products should consider benchmarking TMD descriptions of risk appetite, capital preservation, liquidity and maximum portfolio allocation against ASIC’s concerns in this action and recent private-credit stop orders.
• Compliance teams should consider preserving records of the TMD review, distribution controls, complaints, significant dealings and escalation decisions, and assessing whether changes to the product design, target market or distribution arrangements are necessary under the DDO review framework.

What changed

This is an enforcement intervention rather than a new generally applicable rule. Until the order is revoked or expires, Fidante must not deal in the Class A units, give or distribute a product disclosure statement for the product, or provide general financial product advice to retail clients recommending an investment in it.

Key dates

2026-10-13

The SFC directed SEHK to suspend dealings in Baicha shares from 9:00 am under section 8(1) of the Securities and Futures (Stock Market Listing) Rules; the SFC also announced the restriction notices and continuing investigations.

2026-09-10

The SFC directed SEHK to suspend dealings in Cloudbreak Pharma Inc. shares from 9:00 am under section 8(1) of the Securities and Futures (Stock Market Listing) Rules.

2025-04-01

Dealings in Tianju Dihe shares were suspended and remained suspended as of the SFC publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify any client accounts, beneficial owners, introducers, nominees or related entities connected to the Nine Entities or Three Entities and ensure that no restricted assets are dealt with or processed without prior written SFC consent.
• Affected brokers should consider implementing account-level restrictions covering trading, transfers, withdrawals, pledges, corporate actions and indirect instructions, while preserving records showing how restrictions and escalation requirements were applied.
• IPO intermediaries may wish to reperform look-through due diligence on placees and their ultimate beneficial owners, including common addresses, directors, funding sources, financing providers, nominee arrangements, subscription concentrations and links across multiple IPOs.
• Sponsors, underwriters and placing agents should consider reviewing whether subscription funding, post-listing financing, purported financial-product investments or issuer-to-placee arrangements could create undisclosed circularity or an artificial appearance of demand.
• Firms may wish to enhance surveillance for coordinated IPO applications, unusually concentrated allocations, rapid post-listing disposals, cross-account transfers, common funding sources and flows between issuers, major placees and connected parties.
• Firms with exposure to Baicha, Cloudbreak or Tianju Dihe may wish to preserve relevant onboarding, order, allocation, communications, funding, transaction-monitoring and client-instruction records and assess whether any regulatory notification or cooperation obligation is engaged.
• Boards and senior management of IPO-related businesses may wish to assess whether existing governance and escalation arrangements adequately cover suspected market manipulation, false-market risks and conflicts involving licensed representatives or connected companies.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new generally applicable rule. Under section 8(1) of the Securities and Futures (Stock Market Listing) Rules, the SFC directed SEHK to suspend Baicha dealings while its investigation continues. The SFC imposed asset-preservation restrictions on six brokers in relation to accounts associated with Sun Ran and eight related companies, and on 29 brokers in relation to accounts associated with Liu Haoran and two related entities.

Key dates

2026-10-12

MAS announced the enhanced safeguards and published its response to the consultation on public prospecting activities.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map all roadshows, promotional booths and other public prospecting activities against the forthcoming restriction to designated areas at commercial premises.
• Firms should consider identifying suitably qualified event supervisors, defining their responsibilities and documenting escalation and intervention procedures for representative misconduct.
• Firms should consider revising scripts and training so representatives clearly state their marketing purpose before engagement and obtain consumer consent before proceeding.
• Firms may wish to establish monitoring, sampling and management-information controls to evidence that consent was obtained and that solicitation was not persistent or otherwise inappropriate.
• Firms should review policies, representative procedures, venue approval processes, third-party arrangements and supervisory testing for continued street canvassing or door-to-door activity, which remains prohibited.
• Compliance teams may wish to track the 2027 issuance of the updated Guidelines and calculate the applicable nine-month transition period from the actual issuance date rather than from this announcement.
• Firms should consider aligning physical prospecting controls with their existing controls for digital advertising activities introduced in September 2025.

What changed

Financial institutions will be expected to conduct public prospecting only in designated areas at commercial premises. They will need to appoint suitably qualified individuals to oversee representatives’ conduct at such events. Representatives must disclose at the outset that they intend to market financial products or services and obtain the consumer’s consent before continuing the engagement. Street canvassing and door-to-door prospecting remain prohibited.

Key dates

2026-06-30

The three Funds had $251.8 million in assets under management, according to ASIC’s background information.

2026-10-08

ASIC announced the interim stop order, which took effect to halt offers, issues, sales and transfers under the affected PDSs while the order remains in force.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should review retail private-credit PDSs against Corporations Act 2001 sections 1013C(3), 1013D and 1013F and ASIC Regulatory Guide 168, with particular attention to whether material risks and costs are presented clearly, concisely and effectively.
• Compliance teams may wish to reconcile all stated loan-portfolio and diversification metrics to current underlying data, define the calculation methodology and test whether concentration by property type, geography, borrower, security ranking, loan-to-value ratio and maturity is readily understandable.
• Firms should consider documenting all costs associated with disposing of, redeeming or transferring an interest, including circumstances in which an exit may be delayed, restricted or priced below investor expectations.
• Product issuers may wish to explain the purpose, funding, governance, triggers, permitted uses and limitations of any investor reserve, impairment or capital-loss account, including whether it provides contractual protection or merely represents an internal allocation.
• Distribution teams should consider suspending or reviewing affected marketing, application and transfer processes where a PDS is subject to a stop order, and checking that advisers and platforms are not facilitating prohibited conduct.
• Private-credit fund managers should consider broader reviews of fee structures, margin arrangements, valuation and impairment practices, liquidity, conflicts of interest and retail-client distribution, given the issues identified in independent industry reporting as part of ASIC’s broader 2026 scrutiny of the sector.
• Boards, responsible entities and compliance committees may wish to retain evidence of PDS review, data validation, legal sign-off, escalation and remediation decisions in anticipation of further ASIC surveillance or a final stop-order process.

What changed

The interim stop order applies to the PDSs for the ASCF Premium Capital Fund, ASCF Select Income Fund and ASCF High Yield Fund. While the order remains in force, ASCF cannot offer, issue, sell or transfer interests under those PDSs. This is an enforcement action rather than a sector-wide rule change; however, ASIC’s application of the Corporations Act 2001 PDS and stop-order provisions reinforces that private-credit issuers must explain loan-portfolio composition, diversification metrics, the cost of disposing of an interest and the operation of investor reserve accounts in a sufficiently...

Key dates

2026-10-08

FCA published the consultation announcement and CP26/35, Fair redemption terms for authorised funds investing in illiquid assets.

2026-12-11 Deadline

Deadline for feedback on the FCA consultation proposals.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify NURS portfolios containing inherently illiquid assets and assess whether current dealing frequency, redemption terms, liquidity buffers and asset-realisation assumptions are consistent with a proposed 90-day minimum notice period.
• Compliance teams may wish to compare each affected fund's prospectus, instrument constituting the fund, product governance documents, financial promotions and investor disclosures against the proposed requirement for clear access and suitability information.
• Asset managers should model the effect of 90-day and longer notice periods on liquidity stress scenarios, orderly asset sales, valuation processes, dilution and the treatment of redeeming and remaining investors.
• Firms should consider whether any fund requires a notice period longer than 90 days because its assets or strategy cannot support orderly realisation within that minimum period.
• Managers of existing affected funds should develop a transition plan covering the two-year compliance period, including the required minimum one-year investor notice and any required investor-consent, documentation or distribution steps.
• Firms should consider responding to CP26/35 by 2026-12-11, particularly on the proposed scope, definition and operational consequences of the redemption requirements.
• Distributors and advisers should review whether product descriptions, target-market assessments and suitability or appropriateness communications accurately explain the proposed limited access to capital and the distinction between long-term illiquid funds and products offering quick access.

What changed

The FCA proposes that relevant NURS investors must provide at least 90 days' notice before redeeming units. Managers could set a longer notice period where the fund's assets or investment strategy require additional time to raise liquidity. Fund documentation and communications should state clearly how quickly investors can redeem and whether the fund is suitable for investors seeking rapid access to capital. Existing funds would have two years to comply, with investors receiving at least one year's notice of the change.

Key dates

2026-10-08

FCA consultation CP26/35 opened and was first published.

2026-12-11 Deadline

Deadline for responses to the FCA consultation.

Suggested considerations

• AFMs may wish to identify NURS funds with at least 50% exposure to inherently illiquid assets and compare their current dealing frequency, redemption notice periods and liquidity profile with the proposed monthly and 90-day minimum terms.
• AFMs may wish to assess whether fund constitutional documents, prospectuses, application forms, investor communications and distribution agreements would need amendment if the proposals are adopted.
• AFMs may wish to review liquidity risk-management frameworks, asset-sale assumptions, valuation processes, cash-flow stress testing and governance arrangements for consistency between investment strategy, liquidity profile and redemption policy.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess the effect on the FIIA regime, suspension and deferred-redemption tools, depositary oversight and escalation procedures for liquidity mismatches.
• Distributors, platforms, advisers, SIPP operators and unit-linked product providers may wish to assess how longer notice periods and less frequent dealing would be displayed, explained and operationally administered for retail customers.
• Affected firms may wish to submit responses to the FCA by 11 December 2026, focusing on implementation feasibility, customer communications, operational dependencies and the treatment of indirect investors.
• Firms may wish to monitor the FCA's expected final rules in H1 2027 and avoid treating the consultation proposals as currently binding requirements.

What changed

This is a consultation rather than a binding rule change. For NURS funds with at least 50% of scheme property invested in inherently illiquid assets and offering regular liquidity, the FCA proposes minimum redemption terms aligned with LTAF requirements: redemption determinations no more frequently than once a month and a notice period of at least 90 days after acceptance of a redemption request. The FCA also proposes allowing other NURS fund managers to introduce comparable limited redemption arrangements voluntarily, subject to related rule and disclosure changes.

Key dates

2016-06-17

Saad became an authorised representative of Interprac Financial Planning, according to ASIC's background information.

2021-02-01

ASIC alleges the relevant advice period began, during which Saad advised retail clients to roll over superannuation into First Guardian.

2021-12-31

Saad's authorised-representative relationship with Interprac Financial Planning ended, according to ASIC's background information.

2026-10-07

ASIC commenced Federal Court civil penalty proceedings against Osama Saad.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review adviser remuneration, referral, marketing and lead-generation arrangements for direct or indirect benefits linked to product recommendations, including payments made through related entities or third parties.
• Licensees should consider testing whether any benefit could reasonably influence the choice of financial product or advice strategy, and whether the arrangement falls within the conflicted-remuneration prohibitions in Part 7.7A Division 5 of the Corporations Act 2001.
• Advice businesses should consider targeted file reviews involving rollovers from superannuation into high-risk, illiquid or complex products, including assessment of best-interests compliance under section 961B, appropriateness under section 961G and the client-interest priority obligation under section 961J.
• Firms should consider tracing the full economic flow of adviser remuneration, referral fees, marketing funding and related-party payments rather than limiting testing to amounts shown on adviser or licensee invoices.
• Australian financial-services licensees may wish to reassess oversight of authorised representatives, referral partners and externally generated leads, including conflicts registers, product research, statements of advice and evidence supporting the client's circumstances and objectives.
• Relevant businesses should consider reviewing controls against ASIC Regulatory Guide 246, Conflicted and other banned remuneration, and preserving records that demonstrate why payment structures do not circumvent the statutory prohibitions.
• Product issuers and superannuation trustees may wish to review distribution and surveillance data for First Guardian, Shield and comparable products, and consider whether affected clients require remediation or referral to the appropriate complaints process.
• Compliance teams should monitor the Federal Court proceedings and ASIC's broader First Guardian and Shield enforcement program, noting that the allegations are unproven until determined by the Court.

What changed

This is an enforcement action rather than a new rule or amended requirement. ASIC alleges that Atlas Marketing and United Capital received benefits from entities connected with First Guardian and Shield, including payments allegedly used for personal benefit and to fund marketing and lead-generation businesses that referred prospective clients to advice firms.

Key dates

2025-10-22

The SFC published its consultation paper on proposed amendments to the UT Code.

2026-01-21

The consultation period closed.

2026-10-16

The revised UT Code and consequential revised PRF, MPF, ILAS and REIT codes are scheduled to be gazetted.

2026-11-01

The revised UT Code and consequential revised PRF, MPF, ILAS and REIT codes become effective.

2027-11-01 Deadline

The generally applicable 12-month transitional period for existing SFC-authorised funds is scheduled to end.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map each SFC-authorised fund’s current derivative exposure methodology against the revised UT Code and assess whether adopting relative or absolute VaR would be operationally and commercially appropriate.
• Fund managers considering VaR may wish to validate reference-portfolio selection, VaR models, calibration, stress testing, back-testing, independent validation, governance approvals, limit monitoring and escalation procedures against the final revised UT Code and forthcoming SFC guidance.
• Managers may wish to review liquidity-risk frameworks, redemption terms, asset-liability liquidity matching, stress-testing scenarios, anti-dilution tools and disclosures, particularly for funds with exposure to less liquid assets.
• Money market fund managers may wish to test compliance with the 7.5% daily-liquid-assets and 15% weekly-liquid-assets thresholds and document monitoring of investor concentration, redemption behaviour, asset liquidity, days to trade, cost to trade and maturity profiles.
• Product, legal and disclosure teams may wish to update offering documents, constitutive documents, investment-management agreements, risk disclosures, derivatives policies and fund supplements where the revised requirements affect a fund’s strategy or operating model.
• Managers may wish to assess whether existing UCITS or other overseas risk-management documentation can be leveraged while confirming that Hong Kong-specific requirements and SFC-authorised-fund classifications are satisfied.
• Trustees, custodians and oversight committees may wish to confirm their revised oversight responsibilities, reporting arrangements and escalation processes before the transition period expires.
• Firms may wish to monitor the SFC’s forthcoming supplementary guidance, frequently asked questions and revised templates and incorporate them into implementation plans.

What changed

The revised UT Code will permit eligible retail funds to manage derivative exposure using either the existing net derivative exposure approach or a VaR approach. The proposed VaR framework uses a relative VaR limit of 200% of the VaR of a designated unleveraged reference portfolio or an absolute VaR limit of 20% of the fund’s NAV, together with associated governance, risk-management and monitoring requirements.

Key dates

2021-01-01

Beginning of the alleged cherry-picking period involving delayed allocations and disproportionate assignment of first-day gains and losses.

2023-10-31

End of the alleged cherry-picking period, described by the SEC as running through October 2023.

2024-11-01

The SEC filed its prior litigated district-court complaint against Leech; the source identifies November 2024 but does not specify the filing day.

2026-06-05

The SEC settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty, censure, cease-and-desist order, and Fair Fund process.

2026-10-06

The SEC announced its motion for entry of a consent final judgment against Leech; the judgment remains subject to court approval.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether trade timestamps, allocation timestamps, order-entry records, and market settlement-price data permit detection of allocations made after material price movements are known.
• Firms should consider testing allocation controls for fairness and consistency across strategies, accounts, clients, and affiliated portfolios, including review of first-day gains and losses and unexplained deviations among portfolio managers.
• Firms should consider validating that written allocation, reallocation, and error-correction procedures are implemented in practice, with documented approvals, exception handling, and independent oversight.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether portfolio-manager trading and allocation practices diverge materially from peers or from client disclosures, and whether those differences trigger escalation, surveillance, or enhanced supervision.
• Investment advisers should consider reviewing supervisory arrangements for senior investment personnel, including evidence that surveillance alerts, exception reports, and known control weaknesses are investigated and remediated.
• Firms should consider preserving records sufficient to reconstruct the timing and rationale of trade placement, allocation, reallocation, and approval decisions, and reviewing whether disclosures accurately describe fair and equitable allocation practices.
• Affected firms may wish to monitor the court’s decision on the proposed Leech judgment and the administration of Western Asset’s Fair Fund; no general compliance deadline is stated in the publication.

What changed

This publication does not establish a new generally applicable rule; it advances a case-specific consent judgment, subject to court approval, against Leech. The proposed judgment includes a $3 million penalty, a permanent injunction against violations of the federal securities-law antifraud provisions, an officer-and-director bar, and a forthcoming associational bar. The related June 5, 2026 administrative settlement against Western Asset imposed a $100 million civil penalty, censure, and cease-and-desist order, with the penalty deposited into a Fair Fund for harmed investors.

Key dates

2026-10-06

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 63676 and the comment period opened.

2026-12-07 Deadline

Comments on the proposed rule are due to the SEC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether existing or proposed fund products could use the regulated-fund performance-compensation pathway and map each arrangement against the proposed 20% net-gains cap, specified-period methodology, governance requirements, and board-determination condition.
• Advisers and fund sponsors should consider inventorying current performance-fee arrangements and identifying clients who could become eligible under the proposed accredited-investor route, without treating the proposal as authority to implement changes before adoption and an applicable compliance date.
• Fund sponsors may wish to assess the operational and disclosure impact of separately reporting performance-based compensation in Forms N-1A, N-2, and N-CSR, including fee-table, prospectus, financial-reporting, and board-material changes.
• Adviser compliance programs should consider reviewing Rule 205-3 eligibility controls, investor-classification procedures, accredited-investor evidence, client look-through analysis, and controls for the related Rule 203A-3, Rule 204-3, and Form ADV amendments.
• Fund boards and advisers may wish to evaluate how performance-fee proposals would affect fiduciary-duty analysis, conflicts management, valuation, incentive alignment, investor communications, and approval documentation.
• Affected firms should consider submitting comments by December 7, 2026, particularly on the 20% cap, specified performance period, governance conditions, disclosure design, accredited-investor eligibility, and transition or compliance-period issues.

What changed

Proposed amendments to Investment Advisers Act Rule 205-3 would create an additional route for registered investment advisers to receive compensation based on capital gains or capital appreciation from registered management investment companies and business development companies, collectively referred to as regulated funds.

Key dates

2026-06-30

FCA consultation on GC26/4 opened.

2026-07-30

FCA consultation on GC26/4 closed.

2026-09-30

FCA published finalised guidance FG26/9.

2027-10-25

FG26/9 comes into force as non-Handbook guidance on COREPRU 7.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should map all regulated and unregulated activities, group dependencies and outsourced services into an inventory of risks capable of causing material harm to clients or the market.
• Compliance and prudential teams may wish to document a clear chain from business model and risk appetite through material risks, controls, stress scenarios, OFTR, LATR, early-warning indicators and management actions.
• Firms should assess own funds and liquid assets separately for ongoing operations and wind-down, test the timing of cash inflows and outflows, and evidence that thresholds meet the applicable OFR, BLAR and sectoral minimums.
• Firms should consider whether their business plan, normally covering approximately three years, has been stress tested against sufficiently severe but plausible firm-specific, market-wide and concurrent scenarios, including reverse stress testing to failure.
• Firms should review whether wind-down plans specify triggers, execution steps, timing, costs, cashflow sequencing and resource needs under stressed conditions.
• Firms should establish governance, independent challenge, version control and documentation standards that preserve the rationale, assumptions, evidence and judgments supporting the ORA.
• Firms may wish to schedule implementation work ahead of 25 October 2027, notwithstanding that the underlying COREPRU 7 obligations already apply and the guidance is non-Handbook.
• Firms should plan an annual ORA review, additional reviews following material business-model or operating-model changes, and retention of the approved ORA for at least three years.

What changed

FG26/9 provides an integrated framework for complying with COREPRU 7.2.1R and the overall financial adequacy rule, covering all regulated and unregulated activities, group and outsourcing dependencies, material-harm risks, risk appetite, systems and controls, the own funds threshold requirement (OFTR), the liquid asset threshold requirement (LATR), stress and reverse stress testing, and wind-down planning.

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

2026-07-24

The FCA conducted the Attest quantitative survey of 666 UK adults aged 18 to 40 who owned investments or were considering buying investments within 12 months.

2026-08-27

The FCA published the press release and research findings on young investors' trust in AI.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map all AI use cases across investment research, recommendations, suitability, appropriateness assessments, client communications, and financial promotions, distinguishing general-purpose tools from systems specifically configured to provide financial advice.
• Firms should consider assessing whether any AI-generated output amounts to a personal recommendation, regulated advice, or a financial promotion under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, rather than relying on the technology's general-purpose label.
• Firms using AI in regulated activities should consider applying the same suitability, appropriateness, customer understanding, disclosure, record-keeping, oversight, and accountability standards that apply to equivalent human-led processes.
• Customer-facing communications may warrant clear explanation that general-purpose chatbot outputs are not FCA-regulated advice and do not themselves create entitlement to FSCS compensation or access to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
• Compliance teams may wish to test AI outputs for hallucinations, stale or unsupported sources, misleading performance claims, inappropriate personalisation, bias, and inadequate risk warnings, with escalation and human-review controls for higher-risk outputs.
• Firms should consider reviewing whether AI-generated content used in promotions complies with the FCA financial promotion restriction in section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and applicable FCA financial-promotion rules.
• Governance reviews may include vendor due diligence, approved-use restrictions, audit trails, model-change monitoring, incident reporting, staff training, and controls preventing customers or staff from treating AI output as a substitute for regulated advice.
• Firms may wish to monitor the FCA's expected late-2026 publication on good and poor AI practice and any subsequent FCA, HM Treasury, or industry measures addressing advice-like outputs from general-purpose AI.

What changed

No binding regulatory requirement, rule, prohibition, or implementation deadline was introduced. The FCA clarified its current supervisory position that general-purpose AI chatbots are not regulated by the FCA where they respond to varied prompts and are not specifically established to provide financial advice, research, or decision-making support. By contrast, an AI tool specifically deployed to provide financial advice would be likely to fall within the FCA's remit and could engage the existing UK regulatory framework for regulated advice and financial promotions.

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

2025-12-30

MAS issued the revised Notices FAA-N27, 508 and SFA 04-N24 and published its response to feedback.

2026-08-24

MAS published the circular and FAQs explaining the revised misconduct-reporting requirements and the discontinuation of the existing system.

2027-01-01 Deadline

The revised Notices FAA-N27, 508 and SFA 04-N24 take effect; the existing Notices FAA-N14, 504 and SFA 04-N11 are cancelled; and the existing misconduct reporting system is discontinued.

2027-01-22 Deadline

Default deadline for reporting qualifying pre-2027 misconduct matters that were not reported under the cancelled Notice, calculated as 21 calendar days after 1 January 2027, unless MAS permits a longer period in writing.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map existing misconduct, incident, whistleblowing, investigation, HR and police-referral processes to the revised definition and categories of reportable misconduct.
• Firms should consider establishing a documented escalation test for when reasonable grounds to believe misconduct occurred arise, rather than waiting for a final investigation finding, and configuring workflow controls around the 21-calendar-day initial-reporting deadline.
• Firms may wish to obtain and operationalise the prescribed misconduct-report, investigation-report and update-report formats before the existing system is discontinued.
• Internal investigation procedures should be reviewed to ensure that the prescribed investigation information, supporting evidence, investigator assessment, corrective action and appeal information can be produced concurrently with the initial MAS report where an investigation has commenced.
• Police-report handling should be updated so that available police reports and required accompanying details are captured and submitted with the misconduct report, with subsequent police or criminal-proceeding developments tracked for update reporting.
• Firms should consider controls for providing representatives with copies of initial misconduct reports and subsequent updates within the prescribed timelines, including appropriate treatment of former representatives and confidentiality or privilege issues.
• A transitional review of open matters may be appropriate to identify cases where reasonable grounds arose before 1 January 2027 but no report was filed under the cancelled Notice; those matters may need to be reported by 22 January 2027, subject to any written extension from MAS.
• Record-retention policies, case-management systems and management information should be tested against the minimum five-year retention requirement and the requirement that electronic records remain accessible, retrievable and readable.

What changed

From 1 January 2027, Notices FAA-N27, 508 and SFA 04-N24 replace and cancel the existing Notices FAA-N14, 504 and SFA 04-N11. The initial misconduct report must generally be submitted within 21 calendar days after the firm has reasonable grounds to believe that reportable misconduct was committed or is likely to have been committed; a conclusive investigation finding is not required before reporting.

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

2021-03-01

First Guardian Diversified Class and Growth Class became available to adviser-led members through Netwealth Super Accelerator Plus; the publication gives March 2021 rather than a specific day.

2022-12-01

First Guardian classes were closed to new investments; the publication gives December 2022 rather than a specific day.

2024-05-01

Falcon Capital froze redemptions, leaving approximately 1,080 NSMF members invested with holdings totalling about $100.7 million; the publication gives May 2024 rather than a specific day.

2025-12-17

APRA accepted a court-enforceable undertaking from Netwealth Superannuation Services addressing material weaknesses in its investment governance framework and practices.

2025-12-18

ASIC commenced Federal Court proceedings against Netwealth and accepted a court-enforceable undertaking requiring compensation of affected members.

2026-01-28

Netwealth credited compensation payments to affected members' superannuation accounts; ASIC reported that more than $100 million had been paid to over 1,000 investors in January 2026.

2026-08-20

The Federal Court made declarations that Netwealth contravened the Corporations Act in relation to First Guardian.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider mapping their investment-option onboarding and review processes against sections 912A(1)(a) and 912A(5A) of the Corporations Act 2001, including documenting how the trustee independently validates issuer-provided information.
• Compliance teams may wish to require documented evidence of independent enquiries into strategy, underlying assets, valuation methodology, leverage, related-party exposure, custody, redemption terms, liquidity and operational risks before an option is approved.
• Trustees should consider implementing risk-based ongoing monitoring, watch-list and escalation criteria for complex or high-risk options, with clear triggers for suspension, closure, member notification and review of future investment directions.
• Firms should consider testing whether product disclosure documents, investment menus, member communications and online materials accurately explain potential illiquidity and any limits or conditions affecting withdrawals or redemptions.
• Trustees may wish to review historical investment options that were onboarded between March 2021 and December 2022, or during comparable periods, to identify gaps in due diligence, monitoring, risk disclosure and remediation records.
• Compliance teams should consider preserving approval papers, committee minutes, independent research, issuer correspondence, risk assessments, liquidity analyses and member communications sufficient to demonstrate the basis for each onboarding and monitoring decision.
• Where material weaknesses are identified, firms should consider a documented remediation assessment covering member impact, compensation, disclosure correction, governance uplift and potential notification to ASIC, APRA or AFCA as appropriate.
• Trustees should consider whether their governance framework can evidence alignment with the best financial interests duty and applicable APRA prudential expectations, particularly when adding high-risk investments to a platform.

What changed

The publication records binding Federal Court declarations against Netwealth; it does not introduce a new statutory rule or generally applicable deadline. The relevant conduct was found to breach the Australian financial services licensee obligation in section 912A(1)(a) to do all things necessary to ensure licensed financial services are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly, together with section 912A(5A), in the context of Netwealth's operation of the Netwealth Superannuation Master Fund.