ASIC Crackdown Hits Five-Year High: 87 Players Removed

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission removed or restricted 87 individuals and businesses from providing financial services in the 2025-26 financial year, the highest level in five years, as the watchdog accelerated its use of administrative enforcement powers.

ASIC delivered 150 administrative enforcement outcomes between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026, a 42 per cent increase from the previous year. The surge reflects a deliberate shift toward faster, pre-court interventions designed to stop misconduct before it spreads.

Contents

01

The numbers

02

High-profile cases

03

A faster playbook

04

Consumer takeaways

The numbers

Of the 150 outcomes, 87 targeted financial services providers and 27 targeted credit providers. Another 36 individuals were disqualified from managing corporations, with 18 of those bans imposed for the maximum five years available under the Corporations Act.

The permanence of ASIC's actions is notable. Across financial services outcomes, 61 per cent resulted in permanent banning orders or licence cancellations. For credit-related outcomes, that figure reached 89 per cent. In total, 77 permanent bannings and cancellations were issued, comprising 31 individuals and 46 organisations.

High-profile cases

ASIC permanently banned former financial adviser Barry King after finding he misappropriated client funds and provided false documents. Abdullah Popal received a permanent ban from both financial services and credit activities following fraud convictions involving almost $90,000 dishonestly transferred from former clients.

Former Victorian property development director Kylie Campbell was disqualified from managing corporations for the maximum five years after companies she directed failed, leaving substantial debts and losses to creditors. ASIC also banned 15 advisers linked to the collapse of the Shield Master Fund and the First Guardian Master Fund.

A faster playbook

ASIC Chair Sarah Court described licence cancellations and director disqualifications as among the regulator's most efficient tools. “These administrative powers are critical levers that allow ASIC to act quickly and decisively to stop misconduct,” she said, noting they can often be deployed more swiftly than court proceedings.

“Every banning order, licence cancellation and director disqualification removes a pathway for rogue operators to continue earning a living from misconduct.”

Consumer takeaways

The five-year high reflects both increased ASIC activity and the persistent presence of high-risk operators. A financial services licence is not a guarantee of ethical conduct, and checking ASIC's public registers for bans and disqualifications remains a practical safeguard.

The concentration of permanent bans, particularly in credit services where 89 per cent of outcomes were permanent, underscores the severity of misconduct encountered. For retail investors, the Shield Master Fund and First Guardian Master Fund cases highlight that pooled investments can carry hidden risks when oversight fails.