Australian Securities and Investments Commission v MyWealth Manager Financial Services Pty Ltd (No 2)

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) filed an application against several defendants for interim orders to appoint receivers, impose asset freezes, and issue travel bans in connection with an alleged unregistered managed investment scheme. The defendants included MyWealth Manager Financial Services Pty Ltd, Mustafa Mohammed, Mahek Mustafa, 3M Financial Planning Pty Ltd, Mubashir Mohammed, MyWealth Protection Pty Ltd, and Secure Investments Pty Ltd. The application was made in light of an ongoing investigation by ASIC into suspected contraventions of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The key legal issues before the court were whether the evidence demonstrated that the ASIC investigation was "in relation to an act or omission by a person" that constituted or may constitute a contravention and the appropriateness of making the other orders sought. The court found that the evidence demonstrated that the ASIC investigation was indeed in relation to an act or omission by the defendants, and thus the power to make the orders was enlivened. The court also considered the appropriateness of making the other orders sought, including appointing receivers, imposing asset freezes, and issuing travel bans. The court found that these orders were appropriate in the circumstances and made the orders accordingly. The court dismissed the application as against the second and fourth defendants, MyWealth Protection and Secure Investments, finding that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the ASIC investigation was in relation to their acts or omissions. The court reserved the question of costs for determination at the next case management hearing.

The final orders made by the court included the appointment of receivers to the property of the first, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh defendants, freezing orders preventing the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh defendants from disposing of assets, and orders restraining the first, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh defendants from engaging in financial services or conducting a managed investment scheme. The fifth, sixth, and seventh defendants were also restrained from leaving Australia until further order. The second and fourth defendants' application was dismissed, and the question of costs was reserved for determination at the next case management hearing.