Dominique Grubisa’s appeal against a ban by ASIC have resulted in ASIC’s banning orders being set aside (10 October 2023), however the detailed decision confirms ASIC’s original findings when it placed the ban.

ASIC placed a ban on Dominique Grubisa from providing financial or credit advice in April 2022. 

The Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), Bernard McCabe,  was satisfied that grounds existed to make the banning orders.  However, he found that Grubisa’s “problematic behaviour” were issues for a different decision-maker and a ban wouldn’t “further legitimate regulatory interests”.  

The full decision includes details of Grubisa’s misconduct, but a short summary follows.

“Holding out” that she holds licences

The relevant legislation prohibits “holding out” that a person holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) or an Australian Credit Licence (ACL) if that is not the case.

McCabe found that Dominique Grubisa’s “spiel…clearly amounts to a ‘holding out’ by Grubisa under [the law]”.  

Problematic response to ASIC

DGI Wealth Management distributed a template email to respond to ASIC’s cancellation of Master Wealth Control’s ACL.  The email, and video presentation by Grubisa, acknowledged the cancellation of the ACL but both stated that DGI Wealth Management continued to “provide…financial planning services under authorisation of an AFSL holder”.  McCabe found “This was untrue” and “amounted to further holding out in contravention of [the law]”. 

Family Law Act

McCabe was “satisfied that there was a contravention” of the Family Law Act, by Grubisa. who shared lists of the proceedings in the Family Court which included names of parties

Fit and proper person

ASIC argued Grubisa is not fit and proper person, providing a list of reasons.  Being a “fit and proper person” is a requirement to hold an ACL or AFSL.  

McCabe was “satisfied the ‘fit and proper person’ ground has been made out”, referring to evidence regarding Grubisa’s short sale strategy.

Marketing the short sale strategy

McCabe noted that this strategy taught by Grubisa “appears to rely on misleading or deceptive conduct” and noted that it involved “Undisclosed side payments and possibility of misleading the bank”.  Referring to Grubisa’s manual, McCabe said “this all makes for uncomfortable reading”.  

Failure to disclose matters to the Victorian Legal Services Board (VLSB)

Lawyers are required to disclose any “fit and proper” matters to the VLSB when applying to renew their practising certificate.  McCabe said “Ms Grubisa answered “No” to that question.  But that answer was untrue”, although he said “I am not satisfied [Grubisa’s] failure to disclose the existence of the complaints against her can be attributed to dishonesty.”  McCabe said “The lack of attention to the underlying rules which are supposed to regulate her conduct tends to reinforce the adverse conclusion I have already reached from the other evidence about her fitness”.

The multi-regulator problem.

McCabe concluded “I have made serious adverse findings against [Grubisa].  There may yet be consequences for her under other legislation administered by other regulators”.    From time to time a business engages in problematic conduct that is enforced by different regulators.  As shown here, there are a number of regulators that could potentially take action.  If this decision remains, it suggests that even when licensing requirements are broad enough to require someone to be a ‘fit and proper person’, it will be necessary for each regulator to take action to address the conduct.

ASIC says it is “carefully reviewing the AAT’s decision”.   

The ACCC’s case against Grubisa will be heard in March 2024.