ART Affirms ASIC Five-Year Bans on Two Advisers Over Outsourced Fact-Finding and Super Switching

Key Takeaways

• The Administrative Review Tribunal affirmed ASIC's five-year bans on former advisers Andrew Hanley and Shane Monte Silva, finding that advisers cannot outsource fact-finding or Statement of Advice content to unlicensed telemarketers or paraplanners.
• The decisions confirm that these obligations fall personally on the adviser and signal continued enforcement focus on high-volume, templated superannuation switching advice and lead-generation arrangements.
• Compliance teams at advice licensees should treat this as a clear benchmark for adviser involvement and supervision.

Deep Dive

The Administrative Review Tribunal affirmed ASIC's five-year bans on former advisers Andrew Hanley and Shane Monte Silva, finding that advisers cannot outsource fact-finding or Statement of Advice content to unlicensed telemarketers or paraplanners. The decisions confirm that these obligations fall personally on the adviser and signal continued enforcement focus on high-volume, templated superannuation switching advice and lead-generation arrangements. Compliance teams at advice licensees should treat this as a clear benchmark for adviser involvement and supervision.

The ART found that both advisers participated in flawed advice models that failed to put clients' interests first and produced inappropriate superannuation switching advice. Telemarketers handled the initial fact-find and paraplanners drafted the advice, while advisers had little or no client contact and often only minutes to review advice before presenting it. The Tribunal held that these responsibilities cannot be delegated to unlicensed third parties. It also found it unreasonable for an adviser to join a model that gave them such a limited role, particularly for superannuation switching. Because the decisions came on review, they carry weight as independent confirmation of ASIC's interpretation of the best interests duty and related obligations.

The ART set out what licensed advisers must do: have material input into fact-finding and advice drafting, speak directly with clients about their objectives, financial situation and needs, investigate recommended products themselves, and tailor advice to each client. It identified high-volume models and templated Statements of Advice as red flags. Clients with materially different circumstances received near-identical advice, including recommendations to place almost all switched superannuation into First Guardian investments. Mr Hanley advised six clients (four into First Guardian, two into Venture Egg model portfolios). Mr Monte Silva advised five clients into platforms with substantial Shield and First Guardian exposure, and in three cases presented advice on a Statement of Advice in another person's name.

Key timelines: ASIC banned Mr Monte Silva on 10 December 2025 and Mr Hanley in March 2026. The ART affirmed both decisions on 7 September 2026, and ASIC announced them on 11 September 2026. The conduct occurred in 2023 and 2024, showing that ASIC and the ART will review historical advice well after the fact. Mr Hanley's attempt to prevent ASIC from publicizing its decision was dismissed. The bans prohibit providing financial services, controlling a financial services business, and performing any function in such a business.

Recommended actions: (1) Review advice models for the use of lead generators, telemarketers and paraplanners, and document the adviser's personal involvement in fact-finding, product investigation and advice content. (2) Test for templated or near-identical advice across clients with differing circumstances, using file reviews and data analytics. (3) Apply enhanced controls and pre-delivery review standards to superannuation switching advice, including adequate adviser review time. (4) Reassess authorised representative oversight and licensee due diligence on third-party lead generation, given ASIC's review of licensees using these services. (5) Confirm product due diligence and approved product list governance for high-risk or collapsed products such as Shield and First Guardian. (6) Verify that advice is always issued in the correct client's name and reflects that client's circumstances.

Risk implications: Individual advisers face career-ending bans, and licensees face enforcement action, remediation costs, AFCA complaints and reputational harm. ASIC is running multiple investigations tied to Shield and First Guardian and a review of lead-generation use, so further action is likely. Licensees whose models resemble those in these cases should expect heightened scrutiny and should consider proactive remediation and breach reporting assessments.

Source: Australian Securities and Investments Commission